I've been thinking a lot about this thread and some of the excellent analysis on it. I think that definitions are key. Here is my thinking on the logic of the trans activists' position.
There are men. There are women. There are transwomen. Also transmen. There is sexism, and there is, for argument's sake and without defining it, transphobia.
Transwomen say that they feel like women, think like women and therefore are women.
There are the interests of women (such as fighting sexism and improving our situation in society), and there is what it means to be a woman. There are the interests of transwomen and there is what it means to be a transwoman.
If transwomen are women, these should perhaps largely, be the same.
So who defines what is in the interests of women (including transwomen) and what it means to be a woman?
Well it seems clear from many instances (none more clearly than the Lila Perry situation) that the interests of women and transwomen are not always the same.
If women try to define what is in their interests and what it means to be a woman and transwomen agree, then all is fine and these definitions are accepted. However, if transwomen do not agree, then transwomen accuse women of transphobia.
On the other hand, if transwomen give a definition of what is means to be a woman, or is in womens interests and women disagree, again the women are called transphobic and told that their view is wrong.
So in the end who can define what it is to be a woman? - transwomen.
I wonder if this is the logic which is being used at the moment. I don't know if it is and I don't know where this gets us - I am just trying to understand what is going.