The central issue with that is that we can’t let definition be left up to SELF-definition. It can’t be left up to you to say what your nature is. The criteria have to be objective and external to you. You can’t decide to call yourself an Anglican, but rather the labels must be applied to you from existing criteria of meaning. If you pass those criteria, then you are, and if not then not. You either are a man, or you’re not. You can’t just decide to call yourself that. You either are a Christian or an Anglican, or not. It’s not up to you to decide the matter. This is how Anglicanism and those who are a part of it have always been defined, from the beginning of the Church in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. Wrong again. By your self-made invented definition, children can’t be Christians, and neither can be the very elderly or the disabled. I would recommend some basic catechesis my friend, instead of resorting to inventing your own beliefs wholesale out of your own head.
I think my definition would be supported by both Jesus Christ Our Lord and scripture. I don't know of anyone who can legitimately declare themselves 'A Christian' who does not follow the teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Anyone who does not, obey His teaching, obviously does not recognize His Lordship. Anyone who does not recognize His Lordship is not recognized by Christ or God. Matt.7:23, Dan.12:2, Lk.12:46. How do you reason that Children can't live by the teachings of Christ? If even one of their parents is a believer in Christ's Atonement and has submitted to Christ's Lordship, then their offspring are already growing up 'in the fear and nurture of The Lord', from birth. When they are old enough to understand and behave responsibly, God will place the responsibility for their conduct in their hands and on their heads. Until then their conduct is the responsibility of their parents, God Parents and God himself. How do you reason that the elderly or infirm are disqualified from being counted among the ranks of those who love and serve the Lord Jesus Christ obediently, according to their ability? Are you suggesting that obedience to Christ's teaching necessarily necessitates ability to do 'works of the law'? (I admit that that might be impossible for both infants and 'the very elderly and infirm', but our Christian Profession is not based upon our 'works'. 'Works' are merely evidence of 'faith', and individual saving faith is only known for certain to God, not to some supposedly qualified Church official who can declare a person 'validly faithful'. Next you will be telling us that pedophile priests and liars are entitled to be considered Anglicans by virtue of the fact that someone else has defined their legitimate 'Christian' status for them because they say all the right words and outwardly do all the right things, (if they have not yet been exposed and defrocked).
In some rare human beings this is not the case at all. Not everything about the human condition is as simple, straightforward and 'black or white' as you imagine. https://www.britannica.com/science/hermaphroditism