One remark about defining sin, which may be obvious, is: if you look at the circle function definition, the sine function is the inverse of the circular arclength function.
i.e. the possibly more natural function is the function arcsin(y) taking y to the arclength along the circle from the point (1,0) where the circle meets the x axis, to the point on the circle at height y, for 0 <= y <= 1.
this function takes values from 0 to <pi>/2, and sin is its inverse on that interval.
this suggests the definition of sin as the inverse of the arclength integral
i.e. of the integral of dt/sqrt(1-t^2) from t=0 to t=x.
this is the analog of defining ln(x) as an integral, and then defining e^x as its inverse, or of defining an elliptic function as the inverse of the integral of dt/sqrt(1-t^4), as Euler did.
My opinion is it is natural to wonder how to express circular arclength as a function of some simpler parameter such as height, but rather less natural to ask about the sin function, its inverse.