You re assuming far more about my views than I ve actually said I have two related points First that the topic in question is not necessarily bound to an adherence to the concept of self reported identity and that to do so is unencyclopaedic Second that it is absurd to assert the logical invalidity of all other definitions of the word man but that based on self reported identity I agree that the example is conceptually difficult My view is that a range of interally consistent interpretations of that situation are possible such that the choice betweeen these arguments can not be made on a strictly logical basis The arguments must admit of some strictly non deductive premises adductive inductive etc It should be clear then that I m certainly not advocating a definitive binary and absolute definition of man And my reference to Wittgenstein is based upon his fundamental recognition that any word is a social construct indeed it is precisely because of this that Wittgenstein argues that nothing that is exclusively self defined such as his example of the beetle in the box can have meaning To conclude whilst there legitimate arguments for doing so we don t have to wade into the mud of self identity and basic encylopaedic principles demand that