I don't come on libcom often and frankly don't have a lot of mental energy to type up a long post delving into all of the aspects of this question. I'm pretty confident in my political outlook in general. Except where it concerns conceptions of sex and gender and their relationship to one another.
Let me say off the bat that I absolutely regard trans people as the gender they identify with (and support their right to be legally recognized as that gender). I am opposed to the bigotry (and shitty politics more generally) of TERFs, and I am really sorry if raising this issue makes people here - particularly trans people - uncomfortable. But this is a complicated, convoluted subject and I think that makes open discussion about it all the more important.
Part of the reason I bring this up is because I look around and see a lot of people with shitty, bigoted, and often openly right-wing politics who, on a couple questions only, make arguments that I actually feel are accurate, and that worries me! Of course, a libertarian communist can be an atheist, and the fact that racist 'New Atheist' types would agree on that one particular point doesn't mean that there is any broader agreement. But still, it makes me pretty concerned that I could be missing something in my view on this. What I'm talking about specifically is the conception of sex as an immutable biological characteristic. I don't see how this particular piece of information is not - in and of itself - accurate. It is a distinction between gametes that is applicable to the vast overwhelming majority of sexually reproducing organisms*... This is something very different from 1) gender roles, which are human-specific sets of behavioral norms/expectations socially prescribed on the basis of sex, and 2) gender identity, which is... well...complicated.. I guess that latter point is at the heart of my discomfort around this issue. I am skeptical that 'gender identity' is something that exists innately in humans, rather than something that is bound up with social roles connected to the sexual division of labor and social stratification that arose with the transition to agriculture...
Anyway, I hope people will take this post in good faith. And, oh look, despite saying I wouldn't, I went ahead and typed a textwall. Sorry for the long read.
*Re the thing about the arguments around the definition of 'sex' and the line of argument I find myself in agreement with despite finding the people often taking that view to be absolute scum, there's a thread on twitter that is a good example of what I am referring to. Here is a link if you're interested: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1100155220301094913.html
Sex is biological and gender roles are social. Is that what you are saying? Seems like something that should be uncontroversial to me.. Otherwise we are getting into Humpty Dumpty territory.
Though, admittedly, this isn't something I have read much about - Twitter and Youtube are really bad places to get decent analysis. There's some starters here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender