Some clarity in how the trans movement became so embedded, so preeminent

the narrative that female is the natal/biological sex category, woman is something quite different, this is the inclusive social construct model

Sorry to contradict but Dr Upton claimed under oath to be a biological female. TRAs interchangeably use female & woman in a deliberately slippery manner.

Looks like my thread got derailed by the usual suspects. It's amazing really, because post as a GC on any trans friendly forum and you're bullied off before you can say "I <heart> JKR", but on Britain's, nay the world's, premier forum for allowing GC women to express their views ie MN, the opposite happens, we actually engage with the TRAs, showing real respect and patience. No bigoted group is this.
Anyhow, it looks like my thread to tie trans policies to anti racism moves in sport and healthcare has got lost in the noise.
But I've got something quite major from the interactions of the TRA on here.
For the first time, a view into the Transwomen Are Women mantra, and that's the narrative that female is the natal/biological sex category, woman is something quite different, this is the inclusive social construct model, which includes said natal/biological females (exceptions being the ones who've IDd to being men), plus natal/biological males who've IDd to becoming women (to include DSD males).
Finally got behind the circular logic and ephemeral language of gender and sex.
I'm always up for hearing about new concepts, and this is certainly new, although I'm sure the TRA here will tell me I've had my head in the grey bigoted clouds if I hadn't seen this use of women as a term all along.
Silly me for being so inattentive.
Thanks one and all for contributing.
Keep at it if you feel the thread still has legs.

Socially constructed norms, roles, behaviours and expectations that different societies associate with being a woman, man, girl, or boy.

the narrative that female is the natal/biological sex category, woman is something quite different, this is the inclusive social construct model

Sorry to contradict but Dr Upton claimed under oath to be a biological female. TRAs interchangeably use female & woman in a deliberately slippery manner.

You think opposing points of view ever answer each other's Qs? Anywhere in modern politics? You could easily be described as guilty of not answering my Qs as I am of yours.
So, where does that leave us in the culture war? Absolutely nowhere.
Twas ever the case, can't see it changing.
No comment on the CVs of women here, my point was simply that MN is the only place where GCs can easily discuss this subject.
I'm a man with no children, so myself an outlier in here.
Got one thing from this thread. Your natal biological female v social construct woman distinction. Never ever heard that before.

You think opposing points of view ever answer each other's Qs?

I explained to you at length with justifications how gender was a consequence of human biology & as such not only a set of stereotypess hence its 'embeddedness' which was what your original question was asking. That it opposes your POV doesn't mean its irrelevant. That some commenters want to drill down/clarify any points I made as you did yourself isn't a derailment either just because you disagree with the answers.

You will note that there are vanishingly few relevant answers to your questions. That's not my fault that your thread as many do 'lose stream' but a natural consequence of threads.

Biological female/male is a vague description. Sex can be reproductive sex as in reference to the Binary reproductive system or It can be Bi/multimodal sex as in sex traits (hormones, genes, morphology).

Dr Upton was probably referring to bi modal sex.

Socially constructed norms, roles, behaviours and expectations that different societies associate with being a woman, man, girl, or boy.

Nah, it’s just we’re all too busy laughing at the nonsense you’re spouting 🤣🤣 🤣. I’m still chuckling at humans being interchangeable. Bless you for trying though.

But quite a few male boxers do knitting. Des this make them women? Lots of women like watching sports. Does this make them men? If a man likes baking and having facials, is he a woman?

It's the humans as Lego theory. V popular on Reddit

You can't say you're explaining anything like gender as if you're explaining a fact. It's purely a theory, and your seperation of female and woman as categories is also pure supposition. That's a theory within a theory.
It has some curiosity value, but I can't say I find it convincing.
And other than the esoteric circles that gender studies types inhabit, I can't see it flying with any vaguely normal people.
Sociology is already developing a bad rep as the worst of the sciences, and gender studies that promotes your view is even more discredited.
Pointing to science that apparently indicates gender stereotypes are inculcated very early on is doing nothing other than demonstrating the wide variety of personalities and temperaments that make human beings so fascinating, not that we're born in the wrong sexed bodies, or male/female brains.
Good luck convincing anything like a majority of Brits that woman is a social construct and thus open to males IDing as women, and prepare to be laughed out of the room.
If you feel happy thinking this is fact, then that's very nice for you.
People believe in star signs and homeopathy as well, and it makes them very content.
Re my thread derailing, I don't see it that way, despite it being mentioned.
Tbh, the subject was probably a bit overly esoteric even for the battle-hardened GCs here.
But I like to hear new things on this subject, so reading about the race issues as they impinge on trans re third genders and African DSD males, as this becomes a big part of transgender ideology policy in public health and sports, and then your theory of woman as a social construct, helps flesh out further why I feel gender ideology and it's hold on public policy is one of the biggest blind alleys the West has ever gone down.

Isn't the "humans as Lego" theory a variation on the blank slate belief, so beloved of socialists, atheists, social constructivists?
When I read Northernlightsss state that "woman" is a social construct, this is just another allied idea.
We've seen the future played out in other European countries, totally open sex trade in Holland, fully legalised mega-brothels in Germany.
It's no surprise places like Germany have taken to full on Self ID, to kids as young as 14, seeing the total liberalization and commercialisation of the sex trade.
Europe is also light years worse than us on surrogacy liberalization.
Reading Róisín Michaux publish the receipts on the binfire that is modern European culture for women re the sex trade, surrogacy and Self ID, the UK remains an oasis.

So are you seriously suggesting gender as in socially constructed set of norms, roles, behaviours and expectations that a given culture associates with a person's biological sex doesn't exist? That might be a tad contradictory to the GC position of sex stereotypes & patriarchal expectations.

GC ideology is an incoherent system.

And the validity of a view isn't legitimised by how many people are convinced by it. See homosexuality, feminism etc

Gender as a series of outdated, sexist stereotypes does exist. We were doing a great job of dismantling them and making them irrelevant until the genderborg decided that they were actually what defined a woman or a man. Your use of tropes such as “butch woman or effeminate man” are great examples of this. As a thought experiment, if a majority of men started wearing “female-coded” clothes such as dresses, and taking up baking and other hobbies associated with women and women stopped doing these things, would this then mean these clothes and hobbies were no longer “female-coded”, but “male coded” and therefore whoever was doing them was in fact a man?

Gender as a series of outdated, sexist stereotypes does exist. We were doing a great job of dismantling them and making them irrelevant until the genderborg decided that they were actually what defined a woman or a man. Your use of tropes such as “butch woman or effeminate man” are great examples of this. As a thought experiment, if a majority of men started wearing “female-coded” clothes such as dresses, and taking up baking and other hobbies associated with women and women stopped doing these things, would this then mean these clothes and hobbies were no longer “female-coded”, but “male coded” and therefore whoever was doing them was in fact a man?

We were doing a great job of dismantling them and making them irrelevant until the genderborg decided that they were actually what defined a woman or a man.

That wasn't the 'genderborg'. That already existed & will continue to exist as long as males & females exist because long standing social categorisations rely on continuing patterns that in this case are inherent to the human condition.

The idea that you can wish inherent patterns away is another example of the deluded grandiosity of the GC movement. For humans to become genderless they would have to change their DNA but good luck with the GC movement ever comprehending this fact because their whole ideology relies on gendered behaviour being a social construct. Ironically, they can't or won't accept the biological influences that underpin gendered categorisations .

Yes folks, biology is real.

As example of the incoherence of gender critical ideology when it comes to inherent common gendered behaviours, they will acknowledge only those of convenience like male violence but in the same breath deny the existence of any others as 'social constructs'.

You can't have it both ways.

Again, this is patently false given the prefix 'trans' distinguishes natal females from trans women.

As mentioned repeatedly upthread, its the cognitive & psychological traits they share that makes them interchangeable that's why apes don't qualify for voting rights, work place access, banking access etc etc.

That's not to say that barriers to opportunities (for example reproductive rights) that arise from biological differences aren't a part of gender access equity but that they are not what the premise to granting equality was.