Maya Forstater

I don't see that as circular. It's a category that can and should have multiple expressions/definitions, and the only just way to apply them is through self-identification.

If I said a fersiopy is something that identifies as a fersiopy would you see that as circular? It tells you nothing about the nature of fersipoys. It's not a definition. How can a person tell whether they are inside the category or outside?

I'm pretty sure when it comes to gender, folks know. I don't need a definition to tell me if they are, I can just ask them. (Just like I don't need a definition to tell me what I am.)

I have a definition of woman - adult human female. It does not come with any expectations or requirements for gendered behaviour. It is clear, well understood & critical for women rights including the right to spaces without male bodies. Why ditch this for something undefinable?

Do you see that this excludes women who do not necessarily have the reproductive parts that “females” are thought to be born with? Why exclude? What are the gains there? Exclusion perpetuates the problems were trying solve, no?

No it doesn't. Girls (most often XX but there are rare chromosome variations) who are born with female anatomy but eg incomplete vaginas, no uterus etc are female. Boys/ men who express traditionally feminine gender roles or have plastic surgery do not literally become women.

What makes this group female? It seems like a 'logical construct': picking together assorted things (reproductive capacity, aesthetic, chromosomes), chucking these chosen items in a shopping trolley, calling it 'female'. Moreover, why does that constructed identity matter?

Nope.Nothing aesthetic about it. Sex chromosomes & reproductive capacity are not randomly 'assorted things' plucked into a trolley. Everybody's mother was female. Everybody's father was male. Every person is one of these two types even if they don't go on to be mothers or fathers