And that's the problem isn't it?
By including "those you would call men" not just as "not men" but now even "non male", you have just given a perfect demonstration of how there's no way under Gender Ideology to include all women (original sex-based meaning) and exclude all men (original sex based meaning).
Of course, Genderists don't see that as a problem. They believe that body sex is so trivially unimportant to what one experiences in life that there is no need to even have names for it, so they don't think it matters that they make it literally impossible for female people (in the original sex-based meaning of the word), to recognize the commonalities they experience and to organize themselves to understand and fight against them.
Think about that. Genderists believe that one of the most consistently marginalized and oppressed groups don't even deserve a name.
Now, that would be a-ok if the Genderists' belief that body sex is trivial and unimportant was right.
But it isn't. They are wrong.
Obviously, undeniably, demonstrably, embarrassingly, catastrophically wrong. As even the most cursory glance at historic and current social indicators shows.(1)
And by insisting on it anyway, they are perpetrating a deep injustice against women and girls (original sex based meaning).
(1) Well, it shows as long as we still have access to sex-segregated data. Which is the other deep injustice against women and girls. Take away our name and you take away both our personal ability to identify common sex-based experiences, and our collective ability to prove that sex base with data.