The definition I gave differs from yours only in that it encompasses what you were initially defining as gender, rather than the term itself.
While I fully understand that the intent of your definition is to encompass those same concepts, I take issue with the execution; your definition simply does not have the necessary words to express that those concepts are included. As such, your definition cannot actually be interpreted to mean what you have said that it means by virtue of reading the words alone.
Further, I don't believe that the correct words exist to succinctly express those same concepts.
Per example, I enjoy wearing cute necklaces; this is an expression thing. Typically, men don't want to wear cute necklaces, whereas it is normal for women to do so. My specific identity in this case is that I identify as someone for whom cute necklaces are an appropriate item to wear. However, I genuinely enjoy wearing them, and as such this identity is hardly rooted in my concept of the female sex.
By another example, I typically place a higher relative importance on the thoughts and opinions of the person I am talking to than on what they are saying; this is also an expression thing. This is also something that women typically do. I do this because I like to have meaningful relationships and conversations with the people with whom I interact. This, too, is hardly rooted in the concept of the female sex.
My conceptual understanding of the female sex has absolutely nothing to do with wearing cute necklaces and valuing my conversation partners' feelings. The reason that I consider these to be aspects of my gender expression (and the ability to express them as an aspect of my identity), and also consider myself a woman, comes from my conceptual understanding of
women. I do not make a conceptual association between the female sex and women beyond the fact that it is statistically typical for women to be of the female sex.
As such, the idea that my definition of being a woman is at all related to the way I conceptualize the female sex does not make sense to me. And even if I
did make that association, then that would be using sex in a social context; as my concept of the female sex would imply that its members are women, the social aspects pertaining to women would be directly related to the female sex. Since you assert that sex = gender and take issue with gender having multiple meanings, giving sex multiple meanings is not an adequate resolution.
Basically, your definitions seem to imply that I make an association between the physical aspects of sex and the social aspects of the gender which is typically linked to that sex. However, I don't make that association. That's the primary motivation for distinguishing sex from gender in the first place - to have a standard and direct way to indicate that such a link between physical form and social values is not written in stone. And given that I am trans, I
especially don't value the link.
I don't even acknowledge that link in cisgender people. Cisgender people have a fascinating variety of gender identities and expressions. Being a member of the female sex does not imply that you enjoy wearing cute necklaces. And while those who don't enjoy wearing cute necklaces can still identify as women, there is a sort of hidden and rarely evaluated taxonomy of gender identities that exists under the surface. It's just not all that important in day-to-day life, as it turns out, so there is little reason for most to consider it.
In short, having a female body means that you have a female body and nothing else. Knowing that gives me no insight into who you are. Knowing that you are a man gives me some insight.
In that light, I have to ask again where in your definition of gender identity are these psychological and social aspects implied, given that I cannot derive them by making an association to how the female sex typically thinks and behaves, due to the fact that I view the idea of a sex having typical thoughts and behaviors to be nonsense.
