@GibbertyFlibbert
We are reaching a point at which perhaps most of that generation will have known someone trans-identifying. They will be used to people being male without having a penis, or female with one because most trans-people of that age haven't medically transitioned.
I'm glad that you're engaging in this discussion, because I always feel that people who insist that feminists are anti-trans are somehow missing what our argument is.
In the bit of your post I have quoted, it all seems to come down to whether you call someone who presents in a feminine way, but has a male body, a man or a woman.
I am happy to accept anyone as they are, no matter how they dress, and call them by whatever name they choose. But someone with a male body is male. If they have not medically transitioned, how are they anything else? If they do not intend to medically transition (and who could blame them for not wanting major surgery), how can they claim to be anything but male?
Being a man or a woman is not an identity, it is a biological fact. The biological distinction is important, because male and female bodies are different. If you socially 'transition' but make no changes to your body, you cannot argue that you should be accepted in the spaces designated for members of the opposite sex.
In the 80s it seemed to be becoming more acceptable for men to present in a feminine way, and I thought we were becoming more open-minded as a society. Now we seem to have gone backwards, and a feminine-presenting men or masculine-presenting women now claim to be actual members of the opposite sex.