Women are more than their biology, yes, but that is NOT even close to a valid argument for male inclusion (there will never be a valid argument for male inclusion) it is literally a statement that feminists have been saying to get males to see females as people, as humans.
You seem to think that acknowledging that women are more than their reproductive systems means that their sex is irrelevant. It doesn't. It just means that women are human beings who are oppressed because of their sex, not defined only by it.
A butch lesbian, a woman with PCOS, a woman who rejects femininity, a woman who can't or won't reproduce are all women. None of that makes them men, and none of that means a man can be a woman. It means that women are a sex class, and that no matter how they dress, or act, none of it makes them any less female.
(FYI, in the tags, I noticed you used intersectional feminism whilst talking about TIMs. I'll have you know that intersectional feminism, like any other feminism, was NOT created for males, even if they do have gender dysphoria. Intersectional feminism was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw as a way to recognise that women of colour face a distinctive oppression due to the overlapping systems of racism, misogyny, classism and other discrimination. It's for women of colour, not autogynephilic males with lesbian fetishes.)