And: you keep saying "on average" without acknowledging what that implies: there is a distribution, and that distribution overlaps. Some women are stronger than some men; that doesn't make them men. Some women are more aggressive than some men; that doesn't make them men. Some women are larger than some men; that doesn't make them men. All of that means that you can't simply define man/woman on the basis of size, strength, or aggression.
Looping back to gender: it's a social construct, and there is no way for a non-human mammal to declare what they think or feel in a way we can understand or interpret. (Lack of) examples from the animal kingdom have no bearing.
My point is that sex deeply influences gender. Gender expression and gender roles have a direct line to sex via chromosomes > hormones + body structure > how you behave and how you're treated.
You can of course call yourself whatever you want, but expecting others to adhere to that, or even being bothered that they don't, is senseless.
So when a man calls himself a woman, and says it's on the basis of some internal feeling of being a woman - how on earth is he supposed to know what that is like? Being male, he has absolutely zero reference point for what it's like to be female.
He might desire to be a woman (and claim to have a "female gender identity" because of this), but that's not the same thing as actually being a woman. And if you look on the trans forums where these males discuss this, you can see it's all about performing stereotypes of femininity. Often related to being sexually aroused by the thought of cross-dressing - the so-called "euphoria boner", as they put it.
Furthermore, most of these men use their claims of having a "female gender identity" to demand access to women-only spaces, disregarding and violating women's boundaries, and defeating the whole point of why we have sex-segregated spaces in the first place. Gender identity is a dangerous, misogynistic concept that is harming women and children.
Thanks! Your saying "Being male, he has absolutely zero reference point for what it's like to be female" made me think.
That said, I disagree :-)
I'm male -- both in chromosomes and in thought -- but I know that (generally) being a woman involves wearing skirts, makeup, and in general softer, more elaborate clothes; paying more attention to grooming a certain way; maybe wearing makeup, at least a little; being deferred to in lesser matters like who goes first through a door, but expected to defer in more serious matters like where to go and how to get there. I don't have to experience any of the above to envision what they feel like, or to know whether I would be more comfortable experiencing them one way or the other.
Calling these things "stereotypes" is a silly minification of them. If they are just stereotypes, then women should be able to discard them whenever they wish, but that is far from the case when it comes to negotiating, advancing, getting their way, etc., etc.
"And if you look on the trans forums where these males discuss this, you can see it's all about performing stereotypes of femininity." You've done extensive research? :-) And again, "stereotypes" is dismissive.
Your last paragraph is an unjustified panic, but I'll at least reply to say that if I were to be concerned about someone in the bathroom, it would be concern for someone who presents as a woman, but is forced to use the men's room because beneath their poodle skirt they happen to have a penis.
And: you keep saying "on average" without acknowledging what that implies: there is a distribution, and that distribution overlaps. Some women are stronger than some men; that doesn't make them men. Some women are more aggressive than some men; that doesn't make them men. Some women are larger than some men; that doesn't make them men. All of that means that you can't simply define man/woman on the basis of size, strength, or aggression.
Looping back to gender: it's a social construct, and there is no way for a non-human mammal to declare what they think or feel in a way we can understand or interpret. (Lack of) examples from the animal kingdom have no bearing.