No, it's actually not, even at the level of biology. When you say "what it really is" you're getting into idealist metaphysics.

I... what? You turn a discussion about the biological nature of sex, involve cultural aspects about it, then use that to make a comment on the biology of it. That's a rhetorical sleight of hand, and if you continue doing that, then I guess it's better to just say we agree to disagree on this point.

No woman can be a "woman" in every sense of the world, because there is no stable and static referent for woman.

The definition of "woman" has been pretty stable since as far back as we can tell. Like, if you went back in time, people would be able to point out "man" from "woman."

Call yourself a male all you want, but this isn't enlightenment, it's your failure to grasp the material complexity of what's involved here.

I just acknowledge that my body was made to fulfill a specific role in the reproductive cycle. Where does the enlightenment and material complexity come into play?