For instance, you can see him trying to tie sexism into union rhetoric here, where "women" are analogous to "workers."
If you'll recall his "you can only define firefighters through a circular definition" argument, you see how often he comes back to this idea that woman is an adopted career path. He is drafting behind choice feminism and Marxist proletariat rhetoric, but he never understands why his analogies fucking suck.
"No other dominated group claims a natural basis for its domination" is an attempt to say that noticing sex differences is analogous to something like 19th-century race science. Of course, grafting sexism onto slavery and labor discourse doesn't work at all because being a woman has a meaning independent of man (the same as being "African" is a value-neutral statement, or being "a firefighter" does not depend on distinguishing yourself from anti-firefighters). "Women have this much muscle and lung capacity" exists independently of "and men typically have more." The comparison is only relevant when stacking up facts alongside each other.