@TRHR
I actually wanted to come back and to engage with OP on some of the points made in the OP, that I do not understand. I do hope OP can come back to engage in good faith. I am not "officially GC" if that helps. I am trying to work out my position on this.
I see being a woman as my characteristic or attribute, similar to my hair or nationality.
I don't understand how a characteristic can be an "identity". It is certainly part or an aspect of my identity as a person, but not the defining "umbrella" definition.
In the OP you also say:
As an example, many trans women don't wear "girly " clothes, they identify as "masculine/butch" lesbians. Many trans men still like wearing make up and dresses e.g. in drag.
I struggle to understand this. If a person doesn't have a female presenting body AND/OR a doesn't present in a "feminine" way.. what exactly makes them a "woman"?
Personally I feel like a person. Take away my female body and take away my gender expression... I wouldn't "feel like a woman"... because there is nothing beyond that that makes me a woman. I am human first. I am not a woman, in all the other aspects of me. It's a forgettable aspect of me, unfortunately the world does not think so.
I'm only a woman only as far as I I am socially identified as one.
To draw a parallel:
I am only the nationality that I say I am, as long as I either have a passport of that nationality OR am culturally presenting as of that nationality OR have an ethnicity that allows me to claim that nationality (eg, one of my parents was French). People will of course debate this... and say someone without a French passport is not French, but I am expanding the definition to include all who have a potential claim of belonging to that group.
I cannot say I am French, if I don't have a French passport, OR I don't present French (act, speak, have knowledge of some of the customs), OR I don't have French heritage.
There is no way someone who is born in Germany, of German parents, who does not speak French, or has ever lived in France, can claim they are French. It just does't work that way.
To me saying that a "male presenting, physically male, and male acting" person "is a woman" just does not make logically sense... because there is no actual link to link them to the category of "woman". No characteristic, or physical attribute, or cultural inheritance.
Please explain how it works in your mind? Where is the link?
Many people would say the world shouldn't be defined as 'male / female' at all. But it always has done, that won't be changed in our lifetime. So seen as that is our social structure, it's oppressive to police how people choose to move through life under this structure based on bodies.
And what do you propose?
*If it is to "be policed" than based on what, if not bodies?
- "Identity" ? That seems to be more restrictive, because it genders internal aspects of self, such as personality/presentation/ etc. To me how you present should not be really gendered. To demand that it is seen as gendered, is more oppressive. That as soon as you act in a non-stereotypical way, you will be assumed to be not of the gender you are. (just as butch lesbians if they like being called "sir").
- If it is not to be "policed" (eg: "free gender identity access for all who wants to identity as such")
Then what do you do about all those women who didn't choose to be women. I think this is the crux of the issue. As S d B said "one is not born a woman, one becomes one" . It is a process. White privileged, middle class women can "become a woman" ... but for many "becoming a woman" is something done to them. You are made into a woman through a long, long process of social gendering.
I think it is is offensive to assume that most women "chose to be women" or "choose to identify as women". There is very, very little choice in that for so many.
Basing the definition of woman on sex is basically accepting that reality -that there is very little choice in what body you are born into, and that based on that you will be subjected to different oppressive processes.
To me one of the most offensive aspects of the "be free to identify however you want to".. is that most of us don't get that choice. We cannot transgress our sex. We have to work with that reality. GC is not "reducing women to genitals". It is acknowledging that we are people first, who are oppressed differently based on what genitals we have. It's not endorsing this reality by any means. It is trying to change - but not through denying that it exists.
When you say:
By saying "you can't be a woman if you're born without a vagina, and if you're born with a vagina you must be a woman" you're making reproductive organs the defining and most important characteristic of being a woman.
You are making it sound as if "being a woman" is a desirable club that everyone should have a "right to get admission to", when it is not so.
It is a condition. Just like being short or tall is a condition of some humans. It has its good sides and its bad sides, but it is not something "you are".
It is something "you have to live with".