The dictionary is updated quarterly. There is no reason to accept a made-up, circular, & therefore redundant definition of a word over the dictionary's.

And even though it may very well be updated quarterly, the dictionary does not always take into account the social and societal usage of words. Just because words a defined such a way in the dictionary doesn't mean we use them that way in a social context.

While it seems counterintuitive to accept a circular definition, as that would be unpragmatic, the end goal of accepting said circular definitions is much more pragmatic than leaving them as they stand. You would have to convince me that keeping the current dictionary definition of "man" and "woman" has been more beneficial to the abolition of gender than my definition which takes into account social context and the end goal of gender abolition. So far I'm not convinced.

Yes, they are. They're literally genders.

As I stated before, masculinity and femininity are aspects of gender, they are not genders themselves. Quite literally, when we ask someone's gender we don't say "I am feminine," we say "I am a woman". "Man" and "masculine", "Woman" and "feminine" are inherently connected in a social context, where "man" and "woman" are the categories. Masculinity and femininity are sets of attributes associated with said genders.

I don't know who Jeffrey Star is, but I'm assuming he was conditioned into masculinity & not femininity via socialisation, so his gender would be masculine.

This is going out of bounds of our original discussion so I won't go into too much detail, but socialization isn't a magical force that ends the second you become an adult. People are continuously conditioned across their whole life.

Also his gender would be "man," not masculine. I 100% guarantee if you asked him he would not tell you his gender is masculine because masculine is an adjective not a noun!

All words are culturally contaminated with connotation

So would you accept that the "true" definition of a word is how we actually apply it in a social context, not what the dictionary literally says? If that's the case, let's redefine the concept of gender out of existence.

Again, if male & female can be used, so can their noun forms man & woman.

Man and woman are associated with sex roles and oppression, they are not interchangeable with male and female. But let's assume the dictionary definition's validity for a moment. This makes the terms not only unpragmatic from a social context, but they are also unpragmatic from a literary context because we don't need two words to describe the same exact thing. As a pragmatist, I would like to simplify language by removing unnecessary terms, and if man is the same as "adult male", I see no reason to have that term since "adult male" is a perfectly pragmatic descriptor. Same applies for "woman" and "adult female".

Recognising trans-women as GNC men would actually challenge the concept of manhood to breaking point.

For me to be convinced of this argument, I would need to be convinced that every trans woman and every trans man strictly conforms to stereotypes of their respective gender identity. This simply isn't the case and to assume this just doesn't convince me of your argument. What happens for trans women who still present fairly masculine, but puruse things like medical treatment or surgery which reflect phenotypical/biological aspects of one's body, not sex roles? Are you now saying that we should recognize that said non-conforming trans woman as a woman because that would make them gender non-conforming and challenge the concept of gender?

Social conformity but biological non-conformity of trans-women doesn't challenge femininity

Well of course not, but most trans people (in the context of binary trans people) pursue medical treatment for the purposes of conforming to biological traits, like hormone therapy, as I stated above.

it promotes a biological essentialist view of gender, where femininity is innate.

I am not saying femininity is innate, and I don't care if someone else said it because we are the ones having this discussion. All I am saying is if the genders man and woman are sex roles, then certainly they would need to be removed due to their inherent harm. And the only way to remove them is not to cling onto the terms because of what the dictionary says, but to redefine them in our social usage to make them an unpragmatic construct that can easily be abandoned.

adjectives for the genders: masculine & feminine

nouns for the genders: masculinity & femininity

adjectives for the genders: masculine & feminine

nouns for the genders: man & woman (which are associated with masculinity and femininity, but this doesn't make masculinity and femininity genders)

adjectives for the sexes: male & female

nouns for the sexes: man & woman

adjectives for the sexes: male & female

nouns for the sexes: male & female

Your definitions aren't even accurate as they fail to take into account our social usage of these terms. Nobody says "I am masculine" in response to what their gender is. Male and female are also most definitely used in a noun context all the time, so there is not pragmatic literary usage for man and woman since we already have nouns to describe sex.

Now here's how it should be after gender abolition:

adjectives for the genders: whatever the heck you want

nouns for the genders: whatever the heck you want

adjectives for the sexes: male & female

nouns for the sexes: male & female

My proposed definitions are more pragmatic that yours as I'm eliminating unnecessary terms. Even if we just look at my proposed definitions of sex, these remain unchanged from how we literally use them socially today. The only thing changing is gender.