contrary to popular belief, the sex abolitionist perspective does not necessitate the denial of biological differences which objectively exist. it seeks to destroy the social categories into which those traits are separated (male & female), as well as the significance of those traits in society.
a decent comparison is eye colour (barring the role they play in nazi race theory & the social construct of race in general)-- we know people have different eye colours, we know they react to light differently. however, we don't sort people by their eye colour and assign social meanings (gender) to those biological traits. we don't group them by specific names by their biological similarities (sex).
it's often presumed by terfs that sex being abolished would mean the continued ignorance of maladies like uterine conditions & pregnancy issues, but i would argue that the presence of hierarchal sex categories is what causes these discrepancies in healthcare-- much like race, how skin conditions in darker skinned people go unnoticed because white is the default, & racist mythology (like that of black people being able to withstand more pain) is perpetuated. it happens because the hierarchal categories of black & white exist– same with sex. you cannot separate woman from the patriarchy which imagined her.
why? well, the origin of the sexual division in labour (& thus, patriarchy) was that, some people gave birth. they didn't know how or why, and couldn't stop it, and they were responsible for the survival of the species. equal conditions cannot exist if afab people do not have access to abortion & the choice to opt out of pregnancy en masse (i.e. artificial wombs + higher quality contraception) to maintain humanity. we need a world where, if every afab person decided to stop reproducing (something more likely once pregnancy is demystified & deromanticized by feminism), there would be nothing coercing them to.
therefore, by eliminating pregnancy, we would elimate the conditions which caused the patriarchy to manifest. the thing that caused some class of unfortunate people to be deemed "women," and damned them to a lesser existence with the chains of a body they had no control over. there's a quote in the xenofeminist manifesto which illustrates this point quite well: "if nature is unjust, change nature."
terfs end up at the opposite of this, regardless of what they claim. trying to salvage the term "woman" necessitates maintaining the conditions which brought about the division of people into sexes in the first place. anti-natalist (or pregnancy-critical, a la dialectic of sex) terfs may claim otherwise, but the more insane conservative ones who refuse to read an ounce of feminist theory reveal where sex-preservation leads--
essentially, "we cannot fight the patriarchy because men might hurt us." but men ALREADY hurt us, for everything and nothing. also, this;
trans people are cis women's natural ally in challenging the permanence of nature, and proving the malleability of it. as well as the "radical sex similarity" dworkin refers to in this quote;
important because, as mackinnon said, "male dominant society has defined women as a discrete biological group forever. if this was going to produce liberation, we’d be free." exaggerating the differences between men & women will not free us... much like creating more genders (the liberal trans-inclusive "solution" for patriarchy) coming up with new sex categories will not work, as the majority will remain female or male & be violently sorted into one category or the other.
we see this already with intersex people, and the mutilation of intersex newborns to fit the norms of "natural" sex categories (barring surgeries that deal with potentially lethal conditions.) if we concede even, that sex is bimodal, we leave afab people who do not fit the standard of "biological womanhood" (things that women have but less commonly, bigger feet, larger brow bones, taller heights, etc) and vice versa for amab people and the standards of manhood.
you can still disagree that the term "women" & the sex binary can be salvaged, but understand this is rather similar to the idea that you can separate Woman the Gender from the harmful aspects of gender due to how closely sex and gender intertwine. so closely, that so-called (trans exclusive) "radfems" have reinforced gender by policing trans people or transvestigating cis women.
so, in post-patriarchy, i'd imagine there would be no women or men. just people who menstruate, people who don't, etcetera. similar to what liberals pose today for trans-inclusive language (barring the covertly misogynistic alternatives like "menstruators" or "vagina-havers")-- and of course, part of why terfs are against this is the preservation of womanhood as a natural category, which i've discussed the pitfalls of above.
