Edited to reply to both of the above.
@JellySaurus - don't I know it!
One of things that upset me writing the above was fully recognising that, in all my (probably perceived as in some way bigotted) emails, I'm actually STILL making strategic concessions: anticipating they may dismiss anything else as 'phobic' or ill-intentioned, I offer the olive branch of transwomen (and am prepared to do so in my own daily life, though I'm increasingly reluctant to do the same with pronouns almost entirely BECAUSE of the liberties the BBC & police etc. have taken - nice work, both, in hardening my natural left-wing tolerance into cynical wariness). Like pronouns, transwomen itself is still potentially offensive and materially damaging to so many women and our rights. It's in itself an an indication of our collective generosity in letting it become mainstream in the first place - because now, we belatedly realise, it was a linguistic step towards giving up our spaces and our very name.
Ironies pile on ironies pile on ironies in this debate.
@OpusGiemuJavlo - yup.
You'll see I use both in the above. Couldn't decide between strategic use of the term they approve and I DO find personally offensive - the space - or the term I choose to accept without it, itself a generous concession in the current context.
The worst of all these ironies is: I think the BBC has been second only to these fora in peaking me - its readiness to lie to the population at women's expense, and then defend doing so publicly as an implied moral good, has terrifed and infuriated me in equal measure.