Extremism is born of oppression, you and people like you have helped to create situations like this.
My impression of most gender critical posters on here is quite the reverse. We're mostly politically left of centre, campaigned against clause 28, thoroughly in favour of equal marriage, support anti racist initiatives. Most of us started from a live-and-let-live position, until we started to think about the implications for women's rights.
It's not the nice, ordinary transsexuals we've lived side by side with happily for years if not decades who are the problem. It's the piss-takers, the (non-trans) male predators taking advantage of sloppily drafted legislation, who are the problem. Because a combination of self ID (you're trans if you say you are, and no evidence can be adduced to the contrary) and the privileging of "gender" over sex based rights (a transwoman's right to access spaces she identifies into trumps biological women's right to set up spaces for the use of biological women only) has created this mess.
We don't want Brenda the transwoman in prison for embezzlement or fraud to suffer at the hands of male prisoners in the male estate - but if, out of sympathy for Brenda, we allow the principle to be established that transwomen should be in the female estate, then we have to take men like the child rapist into the female estate too. Because legally there would be no grounds for making a distinction if self ID were all that counted.
Which is why I think it needs to be explicit that the GRA affords trans people the legal fiction of being treated as if they were the opposite sex, rather than pretending they magically become the opposite sex, while maintaining a small number of carefully chosen exemptions for biological sex, one of which would be single sex prisons - with wings for trans prisoners where necessary, so transwomen didn't have to be imprisoned with the rest of the male prison population.