> As to your other assertion, the author's view on sex and gender would have been considered liberal ten years ago.

I feel the need to address this.[0] The page you linked displays incredible ignorance of the past century of feminist thought (including that of the radical feminism movement).

> If we really cannot tell a man from a woman, then how is it possible that women are even oppressed?

Because a patriarchal society views femininity and womanhood as lesser, rightful targets for abuse. People are oppressed on many other lines which are, similarly, not rooted in some fundamental biological reality (e.g. race, social class) and are similarly punished for attempting to breach these boundaries (e.g. refusing to appropriately signal their group membership; acting in a manner not permitted to those of their station). The patriarchy is a social construction, and it can be dismantled.

The passage of Julia Serano he's paraphrased is not saying "we really cannot tell a man from a woman". I'll quote a few paragraphs,[1] for context:

> Claims that trans women are not women often rely on essentialist (and therefore incorrect) assumptions about biology. For instance, people might argue that trans women are not “genetically female,” despite the fact that we cannot readily ascertain anybody’s sex chromosomes. Indeed, most people have never even had their sex chromosomes examined, and those that do are sometimes surprised by the results.

> Other common appeals to biology center on reproduction — e.g., stating that trans women have not experienced menstruation, or cannot become pregnant. This ignores the fact that some cisgender women never menstruate and/or are unable to become pregnant.

> Claims about genitals are similarly problematic: Women’s genitals vary greatly, and as with chromosomes and reproductive capabilities, we cannot readily see other people’s genitals in everyday encounters. If you and I were to meet, should I refuse to recognize or refer to you as a woman unless you show me your genitals? And frankly, what could possibly be more sexist than reducing a woman to what’s between her legs? Isn’t that precisely what sexist men have been doing to women for centuries on end?

> I would argue that all of these appeals to biology are inherently anti-feminist. Sexists routinely dismiss women by pointing to real or presumed biological differences. Feminists have long challenged the objectification of our bodies, and have argued that we are not limited by our biology. So it is hypocritical for any self-identified feminist to use “biology” and “body parts” arguments in their attempts to dismiss trans women.

It's saying (among other things) that nobody – not even Alex – uses his standards to distinguish men from women; which is true. This is something feminists have been saying since at least the 1940s; and it's unsurprising it doesn't make much sense when reframed in Alex's preferred ontology.

> If it's true that privilege is determined by gender identity and not sex,

Privilege is, among other things, determined by gender expression. History is rife with women pretending to be men in order to benefit from the patriarchy in some way; usually to get a job that they would otherwise have been barred from. Part of masculine expression is putting (other) women down, by the way.[2]

Women often have to wear business suits (express themselves in a "traditionally masculine" manner) in order to be taken seriously, despite the pushback they often get for exactly that presentation. A businessman wearing high heels and a skirt (enforced office attire for women, in many places) would be ridiculed, and would experience a reduction in respect – a partial loss of male privilege, plus a punishment for stepping outside his box and violating social norms. Femininity = bad, weak; masculinity = good, powerful.

This is basic, basic stuff.

> Transgender ideology takes us a step backwards. A man who wears a dress must be a woman.

"Feminists hate men! Hah! QED." By Brandolini's Law,[3] this doesn't even bear rebuttal. Read, maybe, a single transgender feminist thinker? This section even contradicts itself later on:

> Trans advocates will deny this. […] To that I say: then what does it mean to be a woman?

This is a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument. Karl Popper's criticism of Sigmund Freud comes to mind.

There's nothing else worth discussing on this page. It's a mixture of low-substance bullshit, not-even-wrong, appeals to "urgh, weird", and misrepresented statistics. (Seriously: even when the cherry-picked stats are relevant, click through to the sources. They don't say what he says they say.) These are not the words of a truth-seeking feminist.

[0]: https://xkcd.com/386/

[1]: https://juliaserano.medium.com/debunking-trans-women-are-not...

[2]: See "toxic masculinity".

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law