I must say, I read the article, and there isn't one phrase within it that I don't agree with. I also have been a life long advocate of gay rights, though cannot stand nor support the current crowd in charge of LGBTQ, who have enthusiastically peripheralised lesbianism and have endorsed the views of pedo apologists/advocates.
I personally think that one of the reasons that TRA has been so successful is that we exist within the comfort of our echo chambers too much, and rather than listen to the content of what is said, assume that an argument will be valid because of who is saying it.
I personally experienced that with my support for the labour party, I am/was a labour voter, and it took a long time to reconcile my social democratic view points with the increasing evidence of misogyny in the party re: trans rights in particular.
We need to ask ourselves can we or should we ever align ourselves with those who share our viewpoints on some issues but not on others? Is our cause enhanced, or not, by doing so?
Clearly, feminism shares some concerns with social conservativism, the article states:
"Pritzker accuses states that require public restroom-usage to correspond to biological sex of preying “on people’s irrational fears for their safety.” He ignores that many people—including boys and men—oppose sharing restrooms and locker rooms with opposite-sex persons, not because they fear for their safety, but because they have natural, normal feelings of modesty. Sexual differentiation is the source of those feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy when undressing or engaged in personal bodily functions".
Feminists would perhaps not use the term 'modesty', we would perhaps use the term privacy or bodily integrity, and we would centre women, but it is getting at the same thing.
Feminists would also speak of the risk to women of male violence when MtF trans enter single sex spaces, which I note the article does not refer to.
"How, in Pritzker’s view, does the GOP assault, demonize, marginalize, and persecute “trans”-identifying people? Apparently, it does so by not subordinating the meaning and value of objective biological sex to subjective, internal feelings about maleness and femaleness; by not wanting men and women to intrude into the private spaces of opposite-sex persons; by using pronouns correctly; and for opposing men and women who serve our country being forced to bunk and shower with persons of the opposite sex."
Again, this is also what feminists have been arguing, material reality cannot be ignored. Biological sex is real, gender is the cultural expression of that reality. Feminists are less likely to take examples from the military though..
"Social conservatives are being shoved out by the “tolerant.”"
Here, we have been arguing that feminist principles are being overwritten by the tolerant/woke.
I did look at the 'about page', and I cant see much that I would align myself with. In fact they state:
"We deny that “family” includes two or more persons of the same or opposite sex who live together outside the institution of marriage whether for convenience or homosexuality or romance or experimentation or otherwise."
And that statement, I disagree with viscerally, and experience as a kick in the teeth.