An inclusive way to be gender critical?

OP, do you realise that gender is not a binary where men and women are equal? It is a hierarchy where men are above women.
Stating that it would be more inclusive of women to not want to abolish gender in order to not "shut down" discussion with TRA's is like asking the black community to be willing redefine racist stereotypes in order to not "shut down" the conversation with Rachel Dolezal.

Question: Do you think it is unreasonable for women to want abolish a structure that oppresses us?

It's not because it engages rather than shuts down discussion
Well you're going to have to explain it a bit better then as it doesn't sound like an evolution of current feminist thinking. You are just saying "we should talk about it". Or have I missed something?

Ultimately 'the other side' would reject your proposal OP, so it gets us exactly nowhere.

While your idea of people presenting as people and using services based on their sex is exactly how I think society should be - it isn’t. Trans people have thrown the dummy out over and over again because they want to access services and spaces they don’t need, have never needed and will never need because it’s not faaaaaaaaair that those nasty little women want to be the only people called women.

I'd support that, it's no different from dressing a set way and calling yourself a punk, but TRAs would hate it, the whole conflict is because sex is willingly being joined with gender.

Exactly this.

Surely feminism is not a gender based ideology. It is a movement or ideology prompted by sex based need.

However, I realised my stance is an evolution of it
But it really isn't. You seem to be saying, let's keep gender and let it include everything. That's basically the same as abolishing it.

Then maybe you need to explain your new definition of gender a bit better than, because at the moment none of us have grasped it.

You seem to want to preserve and redefine gender roles instead of abolishing them, what is the purpose of gender roles in your opinion?

I'd pose the question differently ...

How can we be inclusive but maintain safeguarding and sex based protections?

To reflect the reality of more feminist principles?? Explain.

No, simply because language can describe what is cultural as well as what is natural. Cultural language is useful in reflecting and discussing cultures. It helps us question ourselves and interaction with the natural world.

You seem to have misunderstood. I didn't say it was meaningless because it was cultural. I said it was meaningless because you want you use a single term, say, 'female-gendered' to describe both A and not-A - both adhering to and not adhering to stereotypes. What, then, is the point in the term existing?

If I invented a new word and defined it as referring to things that were either green or not green, it wouldn't be a useful word. It means literally anything and everything.

Of course I don't think hormones or surgery make a woman either, of course.

I think OP has believed this TRA lie that we care how people look because we object to the likes of Alex Drummond. Alex can present however the fuck Alex wants but that doesn't make Alex a woman. The issue with Alex is not just the beard but the absence of any desire to medically or surgically transition but then claim to be a woman as if being a woman is only about wearing dresses.

I suggest you speak to some TRA's about the sports issue and see if they want to campaign for transwomen to be allowed to wear the female uniform while still competing with their own sex in the mens sports category. I can guarantee you that EVERY SINGLE FEMINIST on this board and elsewhere would enthusiastically join that campaign.

OP, do you mean that instead of trying to argue against the concept of gender we should basically nod and smile and go along with it whilst ensuring that gender stereotypes include things like female doctors, men wearing make up, men taking on the bulk of caring roles, such that eventually there are no stereotypes for people to appropriate because each gender stereotype includes every way of being?

But we are society! Society is us!
Yes I know. Not sure what your point is, sorry.

I agree with your sentiments OP but I don't think you're defining gender at all, you're saying it can be anything to anyone which is no definition at all. I'd be fine with this, I don't think there's any use for gender at all, but certain people who are stuck to old gender stereotypes don't want to allow there to be no definition for gender.

If you define something you have to be able to say, even roughly, what each category 'is' - so misogynists and many TRA's say masculine is short hair/suits/playing rugby/drilling and feminine is long hair/sexy dresses/makeup/baking cakes. In your definition masculine is anything that a particular man likes, feminine is anything that a particular woman likes which is no definition at all, basically throwing the concept of gender in the bin (but keeping sexes). I'd be all for that but it's the same stance as gender critical and many people are yelling that's transphobic and literal violence.