Well, I know what the axioms are, but part of my point is that some of these axioms are missing in your question. For instance, you don't mention the fact that lax functors induce functors between the categories of 1-cells. I don't think this condition is automatically satisfied as soon as the ones you mention are, even in the realm of (strict) 2-categories.

Thanks! I am noy sure this is what I am looking for but it may be helpful.

Thanks to those who expressed their opinion by upvoting Andrej Bauer's comment. Special thanks to Mike, who made me aware that I was not the only one not to get the LaTeX parsed in the main questions list. I have now edited the title accordingly.

(ctd) Sometimes, a good question came out of a lousy (which this one is not) one. This particular question is admittedly quite (too much) personal in its original form, but I do think that it could be made into something, perhaps not great, but as valuable as many currently open questions. (I also strongly disagree with the existing answer, but the OP is, I think, not entirely accountable for the answers to her question.)

Thanks to Patricia and quid for their comments. @Patricia: I thought that "focused on" meant "devoted to" but I now see there is a nuance. Thanks for clarifying that. I (of course) have read the comments to the question I have mentionned, and have just read them again to make sure I had not missed anything. I had not. @quid: I agree on the whole. But here are two things which worry me: Usually, closers motivate their vote to close. None of them did here. In some similar situations, people tried to convince the OP to extract a sensible question (less personal, &c.) from the original one (ctd)

I strongly disagree with the first sentence of the second paragraph as it is written so far.

(ctd) famous people or regular contributors. They are plenty of such questions currently open and upvoted on MO. I do not share all of the concerns expressed by the OP, but I think it reflects badly on the community (there may be future politics reading MO, right?) that (among other things) people tell a question should be closed when this is unclear that they do discriminate between off-topicness and on-topicness by other standards than the OP's name. (I'll stop here. I don't want to argue on Meta, where the OP probably isn't.)

(ctd) a terse answer like "this forum is not the right place" or "see your university occupational therapist" (I'm unsure what this is) may not prove very helpful (I hope I'm wrong). I also wonder as to how feel people when they see their question closed as off-topic while others get many upvotes in spite of their not clearly being (to me at least) more on-topic. I wonder whether people who have closed this question would close questions such as "How to deal with loneliness in research?" or "What can we do so as less mathematicians struggle financially?" when they are asked by (ctd)

(ctd) belongs to the realm of math problem solving. But then, why do struggling with loneliness or financial difficulties not belong to it? I would also point out that I have seen Grothendieck's famous quote on loneliness cited dozens of times by mathematicians as one of the most inspiring quotes they know, including on MO. Besides, it seems to me that the OP has stated clearly her situation and motivated her question, and made it clear that she had discussed the subject with people around her. If, as I think, MO appears to her as the only place where she could receive sensible advice (ctd)

As far as I know, Grothendieck does not hold any nationality. But I may well be wrong.

Perhaps this comment really belongs to Meta according to the current standards of MO, but I want to react (quickly, for lack of time) to the closing of this question and the comments already posted. I find them depressing. I do agree that this would not belong to a forum "focused on solving math problems" but, judging (for instance) by the thread "Ideas on how to prevent a department from being shut down" being the third most-upvoted one in the whole history of MO, I cannot see clearly that MO is devoted to "solving math problems" only. Unless preventing a department from being shut down (ctd)

Thnaks for your explanation. I do not want to discuss further this particular case, but I want to apologize if you have found the tone of my comments harsh. I just would like to point out that I recalled one of the moderators (I forgot which one) once explained that MO users are given plenty of space to write the title of the questions and that he thought users should take advantage of that to make title precise. Therefore, it was unclear for me whose opinion the change you proposed reflected. (I would like to apologize for the many grammar mistakes in my previous comments too.)

If people want to object then I will be glad to hear their objections that they could wite in comments. Other users can upvote comments and I will certainly listen to objections if the community back them up.