> And asked what is a women, they would point to some human with characteristic female charaters and say "she is a woman", "and this person probably" "and this is likely a man".

Pretty much.

> Very concrete and refering to the biological terms.

They're referring to the categories, and those categories are often described in biological terms. But they're often described in other terms, too – men are XYZ, women are ABC. There are many ways you can point at the "woman" and "man" categories, none of which are descriptions of every man or woman.

Outside of mathematics, categories don't have rigid boundaries and formal definitions… unless this is the one case in all the world where they do? (Not impossible, but Occam's Razor says human cognition probably doesn't special-case this.) My claim here is experimentally falsifiable, too: if you think you've got a formal definition, provide it, and I'm happy to give you examples of hypothetical people who obviously don't fit into it, exhibiting the divergence between your definition and the real-world man/woman distinction.

Side note: over 10% of English speakers are from cultures with a continued tradition of having more than two genders. It's clear they mean something other than "biological terms", so I won't labour that point.

> That doesn't mean, I feel justified to go to a women only sauna and start a drama, because I feel more female that day.

I understand you're trying to express… confusion? Disagreement? But so far, it seems like you get it just fine. (Unless you're saying that you frequently feel more female than you do male, in which case… I don't think HN's the right place for the ensuing discussion. Check my NickServ taxonomy on libera.chat, if you like.)

Fun (probable) fact: did you know, most trans people don't even go swimming?

---

> But is he really throwing something against you? Is he insulting you directly, or do you feel insulted by his opinion?

That was a tortured metaphor. We've never played catch, either, in case you were wondering. (I don't know that we've been in the same country at the same time.) I don't think Alex has ever hurt me directly; in fact, he's had access to a reasonable amount of my personal information and, as far as I know, hasn't done anything bad with it.

One of the hate groups he's tech support for spent about three days harassing me online, one time. (I think it started because they were harassing one of my acquaintances for daring to put pronouns in her bio, and simultaneously work for a feminist non-profit.) Don't remember whether I was crying, but I know some of the other targets were. Does that count?

> does he only accept pull requests from trans people, if they use their old name for example

Not to my knowledge. Then again, it's a while since anyone I know has worked with him.

> and insist on using "she" only for biological females?

At one point he was trying to insist upon that; no clue whether he still does. I never knew him all that well, and it's not like I keep tabs on every bigot I've ever been social media "mutuals" with.

> That would be over the line for me. Otherwise I could look over it.

I'm not saying you should hate him. Heck, I don't hate him, so it'd be pretty weird for me to insist you do. But he advocates for, and aids, the harassment of people I care about. It's not about blame; it's about trust: he doesn't deserve yours.