I've noticed that defences of transwomen in women's sport comes in two flavours, typically.
One is to cherry pick science and say "well, reducing testosterone makes people weaker." It does, but not enough, and leaves out the fact that other advantages remain - VOMax (oxygen uptake by the lungs), grip strength, height, hip anatomy (affecting the efficiency of the athlete's gait).
As far as I can see, the paper usually cherry picked is one of Joanna Harper's which had a sample size of seven.
The other (McKinnon's line, as I understand it) is to say "yes, transwomen do have advantages, but that's just because we're born lucky - like Usain Bolt was lucky to be physiologically so much better suited to sprinting than his competitors, or like a would-be basketball player born with a genetic disposition towards being tall rather than short. Suck it up, losers..."
Either way, being sceptical of these claims doesn't seem to constitute "hatred" to me.
Nor does the leap from "I'm worried as a woman about my/my daughter's participation in sport" to "random male transphobes (because transphobic beatings are almost always carried out by men, and thuggish men at that) are beating up transwomen, and it's all the fault of gender critical feminists" make much sense to me. It seems like one of those random bits of ridiculous hyperbole designed to shut down debate rather than further it.
I always suspect that the people making those claims may be a little bit lacking in their scientific education and logical skills.