You mention CEDAW. I’d be most interested to hear from @EngenderScot re the following question:
What is your new and improved definition of “woman” that would be coherent enough for a version of CEDAW to be written today (if it didn’t already exist) and / https://twitter.com/EngenderScot/status/1192117055081844737

would your definition result in any changes to the original convention?

For example, at present ‘women’ is understood to be sex-based, so in the convention “women” refers to humans who are female. If your definition of “women” now includes most females (but not those /

who identify as transmen or non binary) and also some males, do the articles in the convention still apply to this new grouping of humans?
Do this new grouping of humans suffer from discrimination directly because they are a member of this group, thus necessitating a dedicated /

convention to protect them, while some of those previously covered by the convention (transmen and non binary identified females) no longer require its protection? /

Are there places in the world where this grouping of most (but not all) female humans and some male humans have been denied the vote, to hold public office, participate in civil society, own property, enter into contracts, access benefits, credit, participate in recreational /

activities and cultural life, specifically because they all belong to this group, while some females can enjoy all these rights specifically because they do not belong to the group? /

Are there harmful cultural practices applied to this grouping of females and males, where the harmful practices are exactly the same and applied for the same reason, while some females escape only because they do not belong to this group? /

Are most (but not all) females and some males often denied the opportunity to represent their country internationally because they belong to this group, while some females are able to do so because they do not belong to the group? /

Are most (but not all) females and some males prevented for acquiring, changing or retaining their nationality and that of their children due to membership of this group, while those females who are not members are unimpeded? /

Are most (but not all) females and some males denied access to education, sport and scholarships simply because they belong to this group, while those who do not belong have access? /

Are they denied sexual health education that specifically applies to their group, while females who do not belong to the group receive it? /

Are this group routinely denied access to employment, equal pay, free choice of profession, social security and health protection specifically because of their group membership, while females who do not belong to the group enjoy these rights? /

Do only some (but not all) females and some males require protection from discrimination on the grounds of marriage, pregnancy, childbirth and childcare, due to group membership, while some females do not require this protection simply because they do not belong to this group? /

Is this group often denied access to the same healthcare, including sexual health, family planning, pre and post natal care? Are there people for whom this healthcare applies to that are able to access it freely specifically because they are not a member of this group? /

Does this group need their own quotas and group specific services in order to accelerate their equality, while females who are not members of the group can be considered as part of the dominant class which this group is striving to equal? /

When members of this group marry, do they experience inequality within the marriage, including family planning and being able to own property, while females not of the group do not have their group membership used to restrict their family planning choices and property ownership?/

If some females are exempt from all these forms of discrimination specifically because they do not belong to this group, and according to the new improved definition of “women”, membership of this group is based on an internal, unverifiable identification, /

which would be possible to fake, wouldn’t the quickest and simplest way to stop discrimination against women worldwide be for us all to identify as men? /

If this is not the case, and females who are not in the group are still subject to these discriminations, &/or the group itself is not actually subject to discriminations *based on membership of the group*, then why would this grouping need a convention to protect their rights?