The medieval / ancient 'one sex' model

It's a view of women as defective men - the same basic biology but just lower testosterone
That's a great and totally direct example -- handicap (in the horse racing sense) a male enough and brings him far enough down to the level of women. Just that one is handicapped by birth, the other by their own actions.
If we didn't still have the hierarchical model in so many heads, this claim wouldn't seem so convincing. Ditto those men who see women as more like children than real adult humans. You can't argue equality with those who see it as this fundamental hierarchy. Not even different but equal.

Also take the new sexual identities.

Not talked about as much lately now I come to think of it.

Special words for don't want to unless know them etc.

The sexual identities have a baseline of archetypal bloke any holes a goal and always up for it. The main labels are all describing deviations from that 'norm'.

Not RTFT but will.

From what I've seen over the years, it's obvious that the whole thing is male oriented. Male gaze. Male view of woman/ man.

The most obvious example of this is how non binary female people bind/ have surgery because breasts.

Why would a male type chest mean non binary? Male as default is why.

In general boobs seem to be a major factor an awful lot of the time.

Male take on it. 100%.

I think you missed my maths joke (as many quotation marks as you like) about equality. Three outcomes there, greater, lesser, or equality....

Not arguing there aren't obviously only two sexes, but the hierarchical model to me looks more like humans (i.e. males), and derivative/damaged humans (i.e. females). Along with children and slaves, all on lower rungs than the male.

I feel binary jars with the hierarchy model
how can greater or lesser than be a binary when it excludes equality?

Well they are two separate ways of categorising that are intersecting. There is both a binary and a hierarchy.
Binary just means there are only two possible outcomes/states. It doesn’t dictate whether those two outcomes are equal or unequal.
Similarly, a hierarchy just a rank order of most important to least important, this can cover any number from 2 to infinity.

So what we have is a hierarchy applied to the binary of the sexes. They don’t conflict because they’re two different concepts,

I feel binary jars with the hierarchy model. And then of course, we have surgery/alteration of the male done by god or by man, so fits perfectly with the single sex hierarchical model.

Plus (mathematical quibble :-) ), how can greater or lesser than be a binary when it excludes equality?

I never thought my half a greek civilisation o-level would be so useful (imposed on us a-level science students by a classics teacher why thought it irresponsible that anyone could leave my school without some classical education!)

G2 has also be extensively embellished over the years to justify subjugation of women.

How can you have a binary when you have the one true human (male), and a derivative, debased incubator

Greater and lesser is a binary - so is matter (woman) and form (man).

Thoughts:

Ancient Greece was not a monolithic society - there were differences between the city-states and also between different thinkers.

Male slaves in Athens were not part of the 'ruling dick' club.

But with Adam as the created human and Eve as an afterthought, not her own creation but created from him. Was pregnancy possible in Eden, or was that only after the expulsion?

Good Omens definitely has Eve pregnant as she leaves Eden - that's why Azariaphale gave Adam the flaming sword.

Also, don't forget Lilith!

How can you have a binary when you have the one true human (male), and a derivative, debased incubator.

It’s still a binary. Both were viewed as human. Think of it like the binary of good and evil. Both completely different from each other. One superior to the other and possessing truth. The other inferior and possessing lies.

That’s why early feminism was about showing men that women are NOT completely different, inferior types of humans. That in many ways we are the same and thus should be equal.

or, show me a male giving birth?

Genesis has two competing and mutually contradictory narratives. In G1, God creates humans, "Man and Woman created he them."

But then in G2, God creates Man, singular, and when he starts playing up, God takes a rib and makes him a playmate. And then MAN says, "I shall call you Woman, made of Man..."

I hadn't thought about the Genesis account like this before (well, one of those in genesis). But with Adam as the created human and Eve as an afterthought, not her own creation but created from him. Was pregnancy possible in Eden, or was that only after the expulsion? But definitely male as only real human, and female as appendage. The greeks had the male as the one true parent in the trial of Orestes for murdering his mother. How can you have a binary when you have the one true human (male), and a derivative, debased incubator.

...OK, but what about centaurs? Couldn't keep their hooves off Greek women. Were there lady-centaurs?

Because there are other languages than English? In which the word woman isn’t a variation on man. And yet the society is still patriarchal

Chinese for example woman is nu-shi and man is nan-ren
French woman is femme and man is homme

Completely different

Some interesting thinking OP!

Aristotle (arguably) saw women as inferior men - women were colder blooded and less capable of rationality (as were slaves).

But he still believed in the binary and women still had a distinct biology - just an inferior one!

His thought was at the basis of a lot of medieval thought.

Ancient Greeks chain of being Zeus, Gods,, Man, Woman, then animals.

Surely it went Zeus, Gods, Greek Men, Greek Women, Barbarians, then animals...

Though ancient Greek thought did not deny the reality of woman as a sex class, they viewed the material reality of women as more like animals; so the hirichy would go; God, Angels/Saints/whatever, Man (and that means Men only), and then the natural world (which includes women and girls and all animals and plants, and Geology

Very true....
Ancient Greeks chain of being
Zeus, Gods,, Man, Woman, then animals. Boy children were above all women and girl children. They definitely saw women as (only just) above animals, but as you say also much closer to animals than men/boys were.

Romans appropriated this, and when Christianity was a Roman cult, the Roman Catholic Church also inherited it but adjusted it for a monotheistic religion. So that’s where the chain of being changed to
God, angels, men, women, animals. The church expanded the chain of being saying that as men obeyed God, so too should women obey men. And that because men were closer to God, they had souls, were more spiritual and superior to women. Because women were closer to animals than to God, we were ruled by instinct and emotion, had no souls and no intellect. Our purpose was mostly to bring boy children into the world...beings superior to ourselves. And thus women’s status revolved around bearing an heir/boy child even if the boy child is only heir to a modest family bakery.

Linguistics is not the vehicle, it is the driver.

'Woman' and 'Wife' both come from the Anglo-Saxon wifeman, a man's wife.

Though ancient Greek thought did not deny the reality of woman as a sex class, they viewed the material reality of women as more like animals; so the hirichy would go; God, Angels/Saints/whatever, Man (and that means Men only), and then the natural world (which includes women and girls and all animals and plants, and Geology (astronomy went with god?)). Nature was very much seen as lesser and base for the Ancient Greeks.
The anomily was really boy children, and there is a lot in Ancient Greek literature about the relationship between Fathers and sons. Ancient Greek men seem to have has a bit of an obsession with their sons overpowering them.
So technically there is a major difference as Genderism in its purest form denyies material reality and vigirously maintains there is NO difference between men and women physically.
But I think there is a paralell between these two philosophies in reality.
The application of Gnederism would/is making it impossible to establish or fight for the advancement of womans rights and though most Genderists would very loudly disagree, there is little to suggest they are not aware of this (the endless threads on here where certain poeple tie themselvs in knots trying to pretend they dont understand issues, issues that are very straightforward, is only one example), these people are generally highly educated ffs.
I am proffoundly sceptical of the claims that Genderism seeks equality between the sexes. There is nothing in its application that would suggest equality is the goal despite what proponents might say. For a start how can you help one catogory if its indistinguishible from the other. The fact there is no pressure on men to 'broaden the bandwidth', there are literally endless examples that show Genderists know very well who is a man and who is not.
Basically what I'm saying is that its a con, though technically aspects of the philosophy are very different, the outcome is the same; the oppression of women, and everyone knows it.
So I think this would have been the same, we dont know how many Ancient Greeks truely believed in their world view, in the same way almost no Genderists truely believe that men are women, its just a way to a means, a method or con that will maintain male supremacy.
In a world where men and woman live, work and love together you need some kind of philosophy that justifies massive inequality.

It does not need to make sense, it just needs to exist, the state sanctioned belief system, there backing up every male bully or man who needs to dominate for whatever reason.

These are just my random thoughts atm.

@Artichokeleaves
And expected access to use of female bodies was an acceptable essential for males

Yes it was and still is to a lesser extent today. Of course, back then in Ancient and medieval times they had female slaves readily available and of course, wives they also owned. Sex with a slave or wife could not ever be considered rape. There has always been a crime of rape, but in the past, it was not considered a crime against the woman, but a crime against her male guardian. Which is why the texts invariably involve the rapist paying a fine to the father or husband for having “used” his property.

Interestingly though the Greek chain of being held that love between men was more sacred and holy than love between man and woman. Of course love between women was considered to be not sacred at all.

The catholics inherited their viewpoint it from the Romans who appropriated it from the Ancient Greeks chain of being. And it’s not about denying women the right to speak about their bodies, it was about denying women all rights and viewing them as inferior to men, on par with a child in intelligence, no soul, further from God, and always subordinate to a male.

And expected access to use of female bodies was an acceptable essential for males. See: gatekeeping vagina, selfishly prioritising own orgasms instead of providing sexual services to male people who need them, and the whole homosexual females must learn to cope with disliked and unwanted sexual experiences which is a social duty for them to provide. Plus all the incel rhetoric, and the pretty much decriminalisation of rape alongside the sentencing in court that often prioritises a desire not to spoil a male's life and prospects regardless of the destruction his actions and choices caused the female person's.

Oh and all the heresy stuff. I often think how reminiscent all that is of the Cromwell years in Tudor England.