I think it's the gender debate that alienates a lot of women to be honest - the insistence that gender is an entirely social construct and the denial that there are any differences between male and female psychology, even on the most general level. I think a lot of women and men just don't relate to this.
I agree. And the principle has turned into shorthand. For the sake of moving an argument along.
But if you actually read these threads, feminists frequently do acknowledge that there are differences between men and women, not just reproductive biology. It's fairly well-known, for instance that men and women's eyesight is different. (can't remember exactly, but something to do with women recognising patterns quicker than men. Which might account for the, I don't care what cushions we have, they're all beige. When quite clearly, they are oatmeal, biscuit, coffee and ecru.)
How physiological differences translate into attitudes and behaviour, would be a fascinating thread.
But for the sake of defining men and women, which is what self identification is all about, the argument is that there is no such thing as a lady brain. There are not enough things that are specific to women's brains, that they can be identified all by themself, despite being in a male body.
In other words, there are simply not enough attributes and behaviours displayed by women, on a universal level, that would demonstrate that they were innate to the female sex only. Apart from biological functions like birthing feeding babies.
For every woman who is nurturing, I can give you ten who aren't. For every man who is incredibly alpha, I can give you ten who cry at rom coms.
From a political viewpoint, it's something to be viewed with great caution.
The existence of a lady brain as being feeble, irrational, incapable of education, hysterical, etc, has been used for millennia to control and subjugate women.
Our brains were literally considered not advanced enough for education. That if women were given the vote, it was essentially giving their husband two votes, because they can't think for themselves.
And until you can come up with a working model that proves all women have certain behaviours or thought patterns purely as a result of being female, then it's reasonable to suggest that the is difference down to a description of biology.
It's incredibly difficult to separate what might be innate, from socialisation.
I think most feminists feel that if you could, in a hypothetical land, dispense entirely with socialisation and expectations, then you might get down to what could be perceived as differences.
But it's a mistake to get too hung up on it. It's a counter argument and reaction to the assertion that not only is there such a thing as a lady brain, but it is entirely demonstrated by gender stereotypes. Like clothes make up.
I've never seen a man who claims to have a lady brain saying they want to do all the housework, pick up the socks, take care of the elderly parents, take the children to school, make dinner every night, do all the shopping, and try to fit in a job at the same time. So having a lady brain doesn't translate into the behaviour of the majority of women!
It's an interesting concept to work out whether women are socialised to be a certain way, or have an innate instinct for it. Because, depending on your preferences, you could argue for either.
What is undeniable is that women have certainly been programmed to behave in a specific way, over hundreds of years.
You only have to look at actual lawmaking to see it.
And it's two separate things. Arguing over whether women's behaviour is innate or socialised is certainly a feminist issue. Because it has held women back by claiming that it's all innate. That's one thing.
But arguing over the very definition of the word woman, that relies entirely on the existence of a comprehensively female brain, and ignores their biology on every level, is another.