For eg. according to many gender critical feminists on these boards - for trans - related issues, especially those situations where a person is considering transitioning, then sex is the only thing that is relevant to GC feminists - because gendered behaviour is not really a thing - after all, what is it to be a man or a woman - either sex is perfectly capable of any characteristics and stereotypically feminine or masculine behaviour? Which is why GC feminists consider there is such a problem with identifying as the opposite sex or transitioning - because what's the point in swapping genitals when there absolutely nothing else that distinguishes a sense of what it is to be a man or a woman?
I don't know whether you are misunderstanding, or trying to deliberately misrepresent the feminist viewpoint, but the bit I have bolded there is not the feminist argument. Not one of us claims gendered behaviour is not a thing. We have long and involved discussions about the very negative aspects of gendered behaviour - be it the aggression and entitlement of men or the socially submissive and people pleasing behaviour of women. We argue that the sole defining characteristic of women is our sex, and that as men cannot share that characteristic, they cannot be women, therefore there is no such thing as 'transition' which is not based on gendered stereotypes, none of which is innate. No one denies the stereotypes exist. The whole bloody point of the feminist movements of the past century + have been about not boxing women into rules and roles based on the arbitrary gendered stereotypes and showing that these gendered ideas are not innate, but infinitely malleable, (to the point where we are now, astonishingly, having discussions about whether males can perform the gendered stereotypes better - which I'm sure they can, and crack on, still doesne make you a woman.)
However, when it comes to things like access to spaces, GC feminists on these boards DO believe in gender over and above sex and whatever is between the legs, because they note that there IS more to it than genitals actually; there are characteristics and behaviours that seem to be associated with particular sexes, and it is important to recognise that and maintain separate spaces and treatment at times. A behaviour associated along sex lines is to do with gender.
Again, this passage doesn't show that there is any internal incoherence in feminist thinking, it simply shows you haven't understood it. I'll try again for the peanut gallery - I suspect there is little point hoping you might understand it if I explain it one more time, you've been around long enough to have read it many time.
Immutable dimorphic sex is the only thing that defines women and men. Each human being grows up in a culture with its own perspective on those two sexes, and most of the time, that culture imposes gendered rules on each respective sex. Some may be connected to assumptions about the specifics of biology, some may be innocuous, but by and large, the gender system will disadvantage women by insisting that women and men are a certain way based on those stereotypes, and organizing society based on those rigid assumptions.
Feminism pushes back against those strict gender rules and says that women can be any kind of person, just as men can, and that the only time a distinction needs to be made between men and women is when their sex is relevant - so when women are vulnerable, need privacy, a fair playing field in competition, and so forth. This is also necessary because gendered (not innate, socialized) behaviour from men can have an impact on women who have been socialized into the gendered behaviour, as well as the physical aspects already mentioned.
There isn't anything even slightly incoherent, inconsistent or contradictory in any of this. You simply don't like it because it points out that gender isn't innate, and as a social construct is entirely subordinate as a concept to the reality of physical sex.