Cissexism is not necessarily an actively malicious or even conscious thing, so "these words and this system" don't need to have been "built [with the intention] to screw us," but that they screw us nonetheless, since our bodies and health needs don't fit into the standards set up by those words and that system so we often go without coverage or without necessary health care and face legal or other kinds of ramifications for not fitting into one category or the other by cissexual, cissexist standards.

I'm still not seeing a basis for determining whether this is an abuse of the system or something built into the system itself. Is a baseball bat inherently a violent item? Or is violence an abuse of it?

I oops'd on the self conceptualized part of the definition. Leaving it out was more a result of rushed writing than anything. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

And really yes, it did seem like a masturbatory exercise to achieve nothing since you spent every comment rather upset about my alleged "terribly cissexist enforcement of male and female's current definitions for linguistic purity" (a complete and utter misrepresentation of my post) instead of addressing the actual point of the post (which is that a self referential definition is a problem)

Long-winded? Pedantic? Annoying? Not really. It's functional. Unlike a definition that just self references. Which really was my whole point. I guess I'm just a little irritated that we filled up so much comment space based on either a misunderstanding (that I kept on trying to tell you was a misunderstanding and you kept on insisting you wasn't) or a strawman fallacy on your part. I find that far more annoying here.