If you can identify as anything…?

And this accepts - and everything rests on - that there is such a thing as a sex matching a gender - presumably 'female' matches 'woman', although they always refuse to say. A concept they simultaneously deny.

You could, simply, believe that no sex has any matching identities, gender feelings, etc, which then removes any requirement for anything to "match" or " not match" and you can just live your life with your own personality in your own sexed body.

If you think that people should treat you differently in situations where sex shouldn't matter, because you appear to be one sex rather than the other - I would suggest that you are part of the problem.

(And where sex does matter - eg as a risk factor or medical factor - then it matters, so it helps no-one to pretend otherwise).

Yes, they are right to say that they are claiming TW are a subset of the category "women" ("subset" not implying any inferiority, just categorisation hierarchy. So a chair is furniture, but furniture isn't only chairs.)
They claim that the category "women" consists of trans women and cis women, although are quite muddled about what those terms mean practically.

I disagree that there is, or should be, a category called "women" which includes or excludes people based on unspecified criteria to do with one's personality, appearance, level of femininity, behaviours, abilities, preferences, feelings etc.

If you tried to list such criteria it would be immediately apparent that it's a far more non-inclusive definition than merely "having a female body". That's why they won't do it. The idea that it's some set of standards you have to meet by feeling a certain way and not just a descriptor of physical reality.

The nearest I can get to any clarity is Stonewall's definition of 'trans':
"An umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth."

So that suggests that a person "assigned female at birth" (bollocks, but we'll roll with it for now) could not identify as a transwoman because then her gender would align with her sex, thus she could not be trans.

As a woman, you can identify as a trans man. Maybe you can identify as a trans woman. Or both.

But, look at that happened to Rachel Dolezal when she presented herself as black.

I can never understand why people are accepted & applauded when identifying as the opposite sex, but this woman was slated for identifying as of another race.

" Trans women are women " doesn't mean that all women are trans, no. Like "dogs are mammals" doesn't mean "mammals are dogs".

There are tons of logical inconsistencies in the trans believers - we don't need to make up any more.

“If trans women are women though, don’t the two become interchangeable and women actually are trans women too? Or perhaps the answer lies in biological sex after all.”

And this is the logic used by female transwomen. That the ridiculous statement of transwomen are women must be symmetrical to be true. The fact that women are not trans women defies all logic. This era will go down as some shit postmodernist experiment and women and children were harmed!

IW states that they are female and a trans woman, so I think it's fine for any female to be a trans woman. Unless there is some sort of difference in who is allowed to identify as anything?

I think you can identify as a trans woman. Going by some definitions, I am agender, which is trans. I'm also a woman.

I'll be happy to assist my company's EDI policies as a trans woman.

Also happy to see a clear definition of trans that helps me determine whether or not I am.

I wonder if you were brought up as agender - ie not having any gender identity - but then realising when you are older that you are a woman - if that is a gender transition? Or vice versa. I've never been clear on whether the gender identity is actually meant to change from one thing to another to be a "transition" or whether you are supposed to have "always been" a girl/ boy/ non binary etc.

I believe that it is considered ‘mocking’ trans people.

This is the main reason really why it's a mistake to take it seriously and enable it by engaging with it in the first place. How does Chump Lady put it? Something like 'when someone tries to hand you their shit, you do not have to take it'.

You've missed the basic thing though that you can't identify as anything and require unconditional enablement and indulgence from others. It's not a 'for everyone' right.

This is about society being split into the servants and the served, who are split very largely on a binary sex basis. You will be told who you will enable and what you must enact, heaven help you if you don't, and those demanding this labour from you under duress will laugh in your face if you try to explain your identity/feelings/intersectionality and tell you - at best - that they don't care. It is by the law of averages though more likely to be phrased in a lot of obscenity, sexual violence and ideation that the average crisis team would be concerned about.

Try for example explaining your identity and sense of self as a biological adult human female, or a homosexual female. Or look up terfisaslur.com and see what happened to women who tried it.

It has been done and the community was quite vocal about how offensive it was.

Almost like binary thinking is at the centre of their ideological thinking after all. But yes, OP, you are right to question this almighty gap in their logic.

I was going to identity as a transwoman when I found a clinic that does nhs funded facial hair removal for them. Apparently as a mere woman with pcos in don't qualify for the funding.

It's called circumgender.

Yep, my kids are Be Kind, they can an accept that a man is a woman but I’m being facetious when I say I’m a trans women. Go figure