What is a woman? Anyone who identifies as a woman. But then what is it exactly that they are identifying as?

Most people in the USA will tell you a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman. But then I ask, "What is it exactly that they are identifying as?" The answer must surely be they identify as someone who identifies as a woman. After all that is the definition of a woman. And this is in fact accurate. They identify as someone who identifies as a woman. And now we have an infinite regression. So, we still do not know who to believe anything and everything they say because we ae supposed to believe all women. Hume and Kant divided between Reason and Reality and this crack in opened the door for this kind of fallacy Because of Hume, Kant redefined reason to be a system of rules. This came the fact that Hume was teaching Euclid. There reason is to build on axioms, and only when a contradiction between a deduction and an axiom comes about then reason says one rejects the deduction. So, to Hume reason has one function alone-to perceive contradictions. Not to bridge between the mind and reality. The problem with this is that Hume states his point as a given fact without ever proving it or even giving any arguments for it. Kant disagreed with this a and said reason has another function that through its software to perceive reality, i.e., through the principles of logic to perceive reality. That is reason is a system of rules by which reality can be perceived. the problem is that this still builds of Hume’s fallacy. Reason in my opinion goes beyond that. To Michael Huemer it perceives universals. But to my opinion it goes beyond that. It is a bridge between Mind and Objective Reality