I don’t understand.
Nor do most people — including quite a few (maybe most?) trans women. But dare I say that just as you all know more about pregnancy, periods and breast feeding than we ever will, we know more about being trans than most of you do? (I say "most" because there are quite a few women who are real experts in this field, including one of the psychs who assessed me, one of the country's leading GRS surgeons (soon to become a mum again), and at least one absolutely brilliant specialist nurse.)
Could it just be they don’t feel they fit into how they perceive men in society are gendered and their logic is that they must therefore be female?
No
If you are born a man how can you possible know what it is to be woman? That is not your frame of reference.
I am sure most girls "know" that they are girls long before they know exactly what is involved in being a woman. But because their gender identity matches their genitals, it never becomes an issue.
For transgirls it is more complicated. I was aware that "something was wrong" while I was at primary school, but I didn't have the words to express it, even to myself — far less discuss it with anyone else. And I somehow felt that it was a shameful secret that had to be kept hidden. So by the time I left school, I was well into "suppression mode". I didn't want to be trans: I tried hard not to be. I failed — but not for want of trying.
Incidentally, there is a large and growing body of research that suggest that "gender identity" (as opposed to "gender role" is innate, caused either by changing hormone levels in the mother's womb, or by an issue with the way the body translates the hormonal messages into cell structures and behaviour. There is also some suspicion that a fertility drug (no longer used) might have had some effect
Why do most transwomen present as hyper sexualised versions of women?
They don't. That is a myth, based (I think) on confusion between transvestites/crossdressers and transsexuals.
Why are many trans activists insisting on transwomen being called real women when they are trans women who have a need for their own particular protections and services unique to their experiences? Surely being trans is something to be celebrated in its own right?
Hardly a cause for celebration! Being trans and trying to suppress it messed up my life for half a century before I gave up and asked for expert help. The transition process was physically and emotionally painful, but it was worth it: I am happier now, my kids like me much better, and all of a sudden I have friends!
But I am stuck with the lasting regret that most of my life was wasted.
I don't want anyone to "pretend" that I am what you call a "real" woman. I know damn well that I have never experienced growing up as a girl, and could never have given birth. But it is extremely uncomfortable to have people screaming "fake" or accusing of being a fraud for something that is no more my fault than the colour of my eyes.
And, as a matter of practicality, there is so much anti-trans hatred that being identified as trans makes life much more dangerous. It is much safer just to blend in (as much as possible)
Jenni Murray had stomach surgery in order to lose weight. What would you think if someone said to her "you may look thin, but of course it's only because you had surgery. You're still a fat person really"? I would call it bloody rude. I feel the same about people who say that about transwomen: it's boorish, unnecessary, and it's only true if you believe entirely in biological determinism.
Why are the perceived needs of so few suppressing the needs and rights of so many?
I presume you are implying that the needs of trans-women are suppressing the needs of cis-women? If so, the answers that they aren't. For reasons that I can only guess at, a tiny minority of anti-trans activists have joined forces with the alt-right and religious fundamentalists to pushing that line, but it is completely groundless.
Why are women called transphobic when they have absolutely no issue with men identifying themselves as trans women and want them to be protected from discrimination as such?
They aren't. (Although I would take issue with your use of the word "men" to refer to trans women. I was never a "man", though I eventually managed give a pretty good impression of one, but at enormous personal expense in terms of emotion, relationships, and quality of life. And when I couldn't do it any longer, the financial cost was pretty steep, too: it crashed my business, and cost a five figure sum for the bits of treatment that aren't funded by the NHS.
What is wrong with asking that a process is in place that protects trans women and women from men who would exploit the self identification for nefarious purposes? Surely it benefits both?
Nothing. Many of us would like to see that, too. Maybe something along the lines of the safeguard that inbuilt into changing the gender on a passport? Or a minimum time — maybe ten years — between self ID'd changes. Although I really don't think the knicker fetishists and weekend hobby crossdressers are going jump at the opportunity of being "outed" to every official body from their GP to the taxman — and through them to their family, their employer, and probably their neighbours.
The problems that need solving are how to cut through the red tape of the existing process, so that GRC is achievable by those who had their GRS a long time ago (whose surgeons are no longer in practice or may be dead) or whoa their surgery abroad. And what we do about those who can't have surgery for some reason? Or whose gender incongruence is adequately treated with HRT or social transition.
I haven't the foggiest idea how you deal with bi-gender or a-gender people!
Trying to unravel this and struggling.
It's not easy. That's why it is so counterproductive to have anti-trans activists spreading malicious propaganda demanding that our (few) existing rights and protections should be removed, and setting up campaigns intended disrupt government research into the issues.
The public toilet issue is a simple and significant case in point. The fact is that in the UK, there is no law that prohibits anyone from going into a public loo designated for the opposite sex. Trans women have ben using ladies loos and dressing rooms for decades — probably centuries. It has never been a problem.
But if someone early in their transition were to be banned from the ladies loos, and forced to use the gents, they would immediately be at vastly greater risk of abuse and/or serious physical harm. No less significant, in my opinion, is that they could not conform to the requirements of the so-called "real life test" which requires then to live "as a woman" for at least a year (mine was two years) before they can be referred for GRS. Please don't ask what "as a woman" means: I have no idea. It's what it said on the letter from my gender clinic to my GP when they told her their diagnosis.
And what is the "risk" to other women? Every public loo and dressing room I have been in has had individual cubicles! All anyone other users he seen of me is washing my hands and brushing my hair! I have never had a problem — even in crowded theatres where I've ended up having quite long chats with other women in the queue! And — pre-op — there was no way on earth that I would dream of using a communal changing room — for everyone's sake.
I'm sure the government will welcome input into its consultation from everyone. What it won't welcome — and will probably ignore — will be abusive rants based on ill-informed prejudice, or any more deliberate efforts to distort its attempts to gather information.