Maya Forstater

Well if the proposal for Option B is not coherent enough for us two to work out what it is maybe we are giving it too much credit for being a coherent idea?

As I said Option A has got a lot going for it in terms of a coherent definition, observable characteristics, explanatory power....

It's a bit like Illicit Financial Flows definition Paddy The question is does option B put together two sets of people "some women" + "some not women" and call the new category "women" (why? for what end?)...

... Or does it put these two categories of people together because they both share a common characteristic "women" which all women (whether bio male or bio female) have, but eg non binary females don't have (is there any proof of this thing? How do I know I've got it?)

If we're using a definition you're a woman if you really feel like a woman, whatever that means to you, does the question "how do I know if I've got it?" make sense? You tell me, do you feel like a woman? I guess: yes.

I can't pretend to understand what it's like to be born in a male body and really feel like that's the wrong gender but I believe it's a real thing that should be respected not shat on on grounds of your preferences regarding analytical categories.

Male bodies are not just analytical categories Paddy. Male bodies are real risk factors to people w female bodies. Yes society should support people w gender dysphoria, but not at the cost of women's safety, privacy, dignity, autonomy, in situations where they expect all females

No, but some of the "what even is this gender identity nonsense?" above comes over that way. I reckon it's possible to hold position sex is what matters in a few contexts, whilst giving more credit to notion of gender as identity.