But they don't. Statistically trans-IDing males are no more like women in their behaviour than men in general, and tend to be over-represented in typically male behaviour e.g sex offending, aggression towards women, not caring about the feelings of women.
There's no evidence of trans women offending at the same rates of men. And even if there were that doesn't mean they don't share other behavioural inclinations women do. And using a 'prison' population IE an outlier population as reflective of the general population isn't how you do reliable data not to mention the numbers of trans people are so low they are statistically insignificant in terms of meaningful conclusions.
"TW (at least of the activist modern variety) are the (P?) patriarchy. They are trying to stop women from being allowed to exist as a natural category in order to prevent them having their own things and spaces. They want to dominate and invade women's lives. What do you mean "bodily autonomy" - males being allowed to shove their bodies wherever they like to the detriment of females? And you do know that phrase is also used by pedophiles, and by those who think children should not be safeguarded against having their health destroyed by "gender-affirming care" before they can properly consent."
Again, you are under the mistaken assumption (or wilfully ignorant) that competing rights can't be managed when as evidence they have. It's The Patriarchy that never provided for compromise as GC's don't.
'I didn't say ideological influences on language are new or unprecedented, I said this ideological attempt to make a word's definition include its opposite is doomed to fail because its political purpose ignores the fact that a category that needs a name will still exist in reality."
What you don't seem to understand or accept is that a sub category of gendered behavioural associations doesn't diminish the biological one. Both categories existing don't cancel each other out. You're making the absurd conclusion that maintaining sub categories will mean people can't tell the difference between a trans woman & a CIS woman when they clearly can. It's like saying 'how will people ever understand what a 'chair' means if we also use it to mean 'chair person'.
"No, pretending "biological determinism" means "women" don't need to actually be women is arse over tit (so to speak). We have a sex and it can't change. That doesn't mean what you can do must be determined by your sex (other than what you can do biologically, like give birth). It is not progressive to think that for women (or men) to be able to overcome patriarchal and sexist norms, they should deny their sex and harm their body. It is simply sexist because it's replacing biology with sexist gender stereotypes and making them the determiner."
The problem with this analysis is it doesn't comply with reality. The reality is we live in a world right or wrong where society has stereotypical gendered expectations. Trans people didn't 'invent' this broader society did. They are just aligning themselves with the mainstream societal expectations about how people should act, think, and feel based on their perceived gender. If you have a problem with that then perhaps its CIS men & women you ought to take this grievance up with.
In terms of biological determinism, there's a reason why far right patriarchal devotees are 'suddenly' aligned with (GC) 'feminists' & that's because they believe biology is destiny & GC's are their useful idiot helferin who will deliver that for them. They understand that defining traits are inextricably linked to political outcomes. IE they'd love nothing more for a return to a 'safe' separate spheres of influence because that's what the body was 'designed' for IE back to time where women knew their rightful place…in the home having white babies.
"The arc of history does not just "move in the direction of liberty". There are many histories and many directions have been followed including towards the repressive, totalitarian and patriarchal. Look at the Islamic world over the last 50 years for example, or the history of Russia, China or the US at various points."
You are mistaking the corruption of leaders for the desires of the people they oppress. Big difference. In any case, where corruption is mitigated (The West) the progression towards liberty is indisputable. BTW despite the human rights abuses in Russia & China they aren't exactly patriarchal hell holes.
"The idea that individualism is a driving force in humanity is a very western one. I do value individualism myself, as I'm very western, but it's not the only view."
Really? Is that why immigration goes in the direction of it instead of against it?😂