Thinking about this a bit more, I think it's possible to draw a parallel between Islamic extremism and TRA in terms of how quickly certain groups have been able to exert influence and become the default spokespeople for these issues.
Years ago when the media and the government were thinking about how best to deal with issues raised by Islamism in the wake of the London bombings, they needed someone to provide guidance. They needed articulate people who were willing and able to go onto Newsnight, serve on taskforces, engage with civil servants, draft guidance etc etc. When groups such as the MCB put themselves forward they welcomed them with open arms, and listened uncritically as guidance suggesting that Muslim boys and girls should be segregated, halal meat served in state schools etc. There was little challenge, as the main criticism came from those who could legitimately be described as islamophobic. Those who felt some disquiet at proposals daren't speak out for fear of being lumped in with the right wing bigots. And anyway, if those groups were unsuitable and other groups refused to engage, who would be the stakeholders to help develop policy? Who would be able to provide the counter argument in the media on the latest terrorism legislation that many felt was infringing on personal freedoms? And so certain groups were able to get influence well beyond their dreams, and push an ideology that appeared to be mainstream to the casual observer, but was actually pretty radical.
As civic society's understanding of the issues - and people involved - developed, so too did the dissenting voices. People began to challenge what had been previously accepted without question. Parents began to complain about the effects of school policies on their children. Questions were asked about exactly who was benefitting from the changes, and why was so much tax payer money going into their pockets.
And so we are now at a point where there are a few, reasonably high profile groups are exceptionally good at lobbying and getting media traction. We have media friendly individuals (PL, Juno), we have groups willing to provide guidance for the hapless copy editor. For example, Mermaids have issued media guidelines, for example, that suggests that language such as "born a man" is offensive (because people are born babies) and "cisgender" is the correct phrase to use for non-trans people "in the same way that heterosexual means not homosexual". But because it is wrapped up with lots of reasonable stuff (of course people should be accorded privacy, particularly children, and allowed to tell their own story!) the problematic elements are either overlooked or not understood.
I'm hoping that we are heading towards a turning point in the TRA rhetoric, whereby more people will say "arguing that a vagina should be called a front hole and we now need to talk about expectant people is bonkers" without being shouted down as TERFs (or worse). I hope that those who say they are "saddened to see such bigotry" will understand what all the fuss was about and be able to shift their position.
Am I being over-optimistic?