This premise is locking Graham into committing the logical fallacy they teach you to avoid in high school debate club. "A fork has teeth, humans have teeth, therefore a fork is human!" There was no way for him to win this argument.
Ignoring the obvious fact that
women are not fucking chairs, language requires some level of comprehension and inference. No definition will perfectly describe something in every circumstance all of the time. A great example of this is that stupid debate on
whether something is soup, cereal or salad.
You'd say cereal is neither, since it's not hot like soup and salad uses vegetables, not grains. Then someone could add "Gazpacho is cold! You can have a fruit salad, why not a grain salad? Checkmate

" and then it just never ends.
In the back of everyone's minds though, we know what cereal is. We know what salads are. We know what soup is. We know the difference between a chair and a fucking horse. If i ask someone for a salad, i'm not asking for fucking Mini Wheats, even if technically, if you squint, they might fit the definition of salad.
Ironically, I believe the definition of woman (adult human female) is one of the only definitions that is pretty much air-tight.
TLDR: Exceptions to definitions don't make them completely invalid.