Well yes, this has always been obvious. Two different groups arguing over what the word "woman" means.
The problem is that what TRAs and allies are demanding is not even consistent within their own claimed beliefs.
They simulateously demand:
-
that female biology is not the fundamental, necessary and sufficient property of womanhood
-
that resources and spaces that were put in place to meet the needs of people who do posess female biology morally now belong to people who are not biologically female based on this new definition even though they explicitly reject the very basis on which this things exist having anything to do with being a woman
-
that people who are biologically female must accept the naked physical presence of and potentially intimate care from people who are not biologically female because they are presumed to share this "womanness", even though that definition of womanness explicitly rejects commonality based on the body
-
that people who are biologically female are not allowed to say "ok, based on this new definition I'm not actually a "woman", however I am still undeniably female and have challanges
Do you see? The fundamental injustice TRAs are attempting to enact upon women isn't a different definition for "woman" (though undoubtably that is a huge issue in its own right), it is that we are not allowed to redefine ourselves as a result of it.
It is the incoherency of saying "a woman is not who you always thought she was" yet still expecting everything that was based on the old definition stay in place.
That tells us it is not our biology that makes us women but at the same time does not respect our right to say "Female biology is more significant to my life experiences and self understanding than this idea of gender, so if femaleness is not part of being a woman then I want to have spaces and language and rights that are based in being female rather than womanhood".
Because if "woman" is no longer tied to "female", there is no coherent reason for female needs, rights and privacy to be tied to the banner of "woman".
The two consistent positions are that womanhood continues to be specifically female, or that womanhood is not specifically female, in which case there is no reason that femaleness cannot be recognised and supported outside of womanhood.
That the latter is not considered acceptable by the Genderist movement tells you everything you need to know - it's not a coherent philosphical belief, it's simply a petulant land grab by people who want to have their cake and eat it, who are only concerned with their own accomodation and their entitled assumption that everyone else must fall into line and accept a new identity and the new allowable boundaries being imposed on to them.