Thus, the crux of this debate is not that philosophers are unaware of a biological definition of female (or, as Byrne (2020) argues, woman). They are merely arguing that such a definition is not a real definition (some may, of course, deny biological essentialism as well).
This dude does not mention anything about the variety of definitions: there are indeed a bunch of different definitions such as real, nominal, dictionary, stipulative, explicative, ostensive, etc (see, e.g., SEP, "Definitions").
When philosophers raise counterexamples involving women with Swyer syndrome (see Mason 2024: 184), they just point out that biologists’ definition, regardless of whether it is useful for theoretical purposes, is not the real definition (essence) of woman.