Eugenics was viewed as progressive and a solution to social problems at one point last century. (If you are Toby Young, it still is).
Medical ethics arose out of the idea 'do not harm' which forced doctors to stop and think about whether their intervention was actually in the best interest of the patient.
None intervention, is the default position, in the absence of evidence.
Given we are not properly studying the outcomes of trans patients and the possibility of de-transitioning, this should set off alarms.
Why?
Because in effect everyone going through this is being experimented on by its very nature. Not explicitly stating this, and not recording the long term effects on those who undergo intervention is both immoral and irresponsible.
We also know that allowing people to self-medicate is a bad idea. Yet this is actively encouraged by trans activists.
Add to this, children in particular are being encouraged to be sterilised. How can you say that a child is making an informed decision without being under duress when the science isn't there to support it, because the research has never been done?
Coerced or compulsory sterilisation has a very murky history.
So for me, if this was about rights and being progressive, then it wouldn't merely be about 'feelings'. It would be about trying to show the medical benefits in an impartial and unemotional way. It would be honest that, there is rarely a one size fits all solution here.
Not to mention that if you self ID and don't have surgery then that does put you into a different category simply because of the physical differences between the sexes and how that puts women at risk of abuse or attack. Which is why, accurate and detailed reporting and recording of crime along sex not gender lines is so important.
All that makes it wildly different to women getting the vote and decriminalising homosexuality.
Its also without looking at a whole range of other issues relating to the subject, which are harmful to women.