Not got time to answer all the ancillary questions, sorry! It's going to have to be a case "here's my thoughts, take em or leave em" this time around I'm afraid (many will know I do usually love to debate my opinions), but primarily I just want to reply to MillicentF's full list so she has evidence that a considered trans-inclusive feminist perspective does exist!
I'm not asking her or anyone else here to agree with it, it just is what it is.
6) Can you define “woman” without using stereotypes?
Yes I can.
To my own satisfaction.
Perhaps even to yours, but you have to ask yourself, what difference would it make??
Even if you agreed with me that transwomen are women, would that mean you would think they should have unfettered access to women's prisons? Is it just because "they're not women" that you want them out of women's sport?
Because all the various arguments I've read on here, only a very small proportion of people centre the "they're not women" thing in their viewpoints. For most people it's more a question of their biological advantage for example, or their anatomy, or how other women may react to that anatomy, and a whole host of other things that would still pose exactly the same problems even if you did consider them women.
And here's the thing, I think transwomen are women... but I still think there are circumstances whereby they should be treated differently (namely where it is a proportionate means to a legitimate end), so what the hell does it matter arguing the toss over their womanhood anyway?
The crux of the argument is surely in what circumstances one should consider transwomen differently from natal women and in what way that should be done, rather than proving that they are either women and should always be treated as such (which only extremists believe), or that they are simply men and should always be treated so (also which only extremists believe).