Water is wet.
There might be people who say its dry, because they believe it is and we've been getting it wrong for centuries.
You can not compromise and say, "er well its not wet and its not dry, its just a bit sort of damp/moist".
That's really the essence of the problem of the debate.
You'll never get a 'neutral' position for this reason.
Some might argue the middle line is that there is a very small number of people who suffer from a medical condition which causes psychological distress around their biology, and they might be better living a life more commonly associated with their opposite sex. In this case, they might benefit from having surgery to releave that. These people need protects to enable them to live relatively normal lives, but this still does not change their sex biologically (though they might have documentation that says otherwise, to help them tackle prejudice). But the number of people in this catergory is very narrow and defined and does not match with the much broader 'trans umbrella' which Stonewall support. But even this 'middle line' is deemed totally unacceptable to some trans activists.
You'll get articles around this position which do have more nuance and an understanding of the point of conflict (Debbie Hayton's in Quillette article) or the youtube blog of Rose of Dawn. Rose of Dawn is interesting as they point out that one of the issues is that the gender radical movement isn't one which is neutral and based on anything innate, but instead is a far left political movement trying to pass itself off as unpolitical and has a goal and agenda rather than the simple desire to exist as they are.
It is notable these two are both trans-sexuals who are caught in the cross fire of more extreme ends of trans activism and increasingly militant femininists who are trying to push back from 'Winston say five'. Both acknowledge they are still their birth sex although they may find this difficult at times. But as I say even their position is not deemed neutral as it acknowledges sex as a legitimate thing in addition to gender.
The bottom line is you either stick to the position sex is a biological thing that is unchanging and gender is ingrained in society or you have a belief that gender is innate and years of science is insufficient in explaining why people don't conform to the sex they were wrongly assigned. In this case there is not necessarily a need to alter your body to reflect your alternative identity.
And both ends of the spectrum of this argument are completely uncompromising on this, and for their own reasons feel that there is no middle ground that will ever be achievable.
The obliteration of the moderate arguement as having any legitimacy has seriously undermined it and removed the ability to have a more nuanced conversation with a lot of individuals, particularly trans activists who are believe that even trying to discuss this or introduce nuance is an affront to their identity and bigoted. You have to agree with them completely and without question or be bullied into silence on the matter.
That certainly is an ideological position and choice rather than deciding that acceptance and understanding comes from open discourse and questions where concerns and ignorance can be addressed and resolved calmly and mutually. The later takes time though, and there is a unwillingness to go through the process, and instead there is a belief that the best way to handle a lack of knowledge is to legislate and control people coercisively rather than by engaging with them.
I'm afraid the whole point is that there is a determination by the most militant transactivists who are largely in control of framing the debate to make it as 'You are either with us or against us'.
You are not supposed to talk about it. You are just supposed to accept what you are told without thinking about it.
And therein lies your problem if you intend to approach the subject; you need to know where the people you are talking with sit before you even start!