“Why should people be more accepting of a man coming into female spaces for sexual gratification, than because he really is a woman trapped in a man's body? The more people realise "woman trapped in a man's body" isn't a real thing, but "same old same old, man wants to get his rocks off" is what's going on, the more they'll realise gender ideology is bunk.”
You seem to be assuming that society believes women’s well-being, safety, dignity, privacy and right to sexual boundaries to be more important than men having their sexual interests satisfied. And that society will push back against the normalisation of kinks and fetishes.
I mean.
Look at all the things that men have successfully normalised - so-called comedians on prime time TV making jokes about rape, anal sex, and prostituted women; extreme sexual violence against women being normalised via pornography and available to children at ever younger ages through smartphones and other technology; no debate worth mentioning about protecting children from the harms that brings; rampant sexualisation of women and girls to the point that girls want to /think they can escape it by amputating their breasts, and barely anyone other than GC women on here seeming capable of making that connection.
Society might, as you hope, decide that ‘gender ideology is bunk’.
And society might equally decide that it would be mean to stop erotic cross dressers from getting their erotic cross dressing kicks at the expense of women’s discomfort and dignity.
Bear in mind that, for example, Kathleen Stock in her book adopted a position of: we should be more understanding of these men. And have a look at the thread about Jan Morris and the description of other men being rather thrilled about JM.
Your hope (that society concludes gender identity is bunk) and Tinsel’s concern (that society will be rather thrilled to accommodate erotic cross dressers and rather unconcerned about the impact on their wives and other women) are not mutually exclusive. They could both happen.
DH’s goal is to present DHself as an upstanding member of society and to encourage society to regard erotic cross dressing as entirely compatible with being an upstanding member of society. It’s another step towards the Beaumont Society’s long term goal. (My guess is it won’t be long before we start hearing references to “the cross dressing community” and to ‘reclaiming language’.) The Beaumont Society’s promotion of gender identity was a means to an end, not the end in itself. They excluded homosexuals when they thought including them would undermine their goal, and aligned themselves with LGB campaigning when they thought that would help their campaign goal. If it looks like alignment with gender identity theory is becoming a risk to their campaign goals, they’ll be re strategising and re positioning. That’s what’s gong on here.
[I’ve adopted the terminology used in evidence to a parliamentary committee inquiry, on the basis that it must presumably be ok here too, to avoid using the banned Malaga airport acronym.]