My reading:
Point 1: it's all horrible and we need to be kind to each other.
Point 2: 'gender critical' isn't a real description and I don't agree with it, signalled by these speech marks. Gender recognition, however, does not get speech marks, signifying that I don't think there is anything to be questioned or discussed about it.
Point 3: a legal process of gender recognition is a necessary and proper thing to have. It is implied that trans people consider the current process 'invasive, cumbersome and pathologising' [and though it's not cited, the evidence given by trans organisations to Maria Miller's review prior to the GRA consultation process would confirm that.]
Point 4: Some feminists have 'misgivings' that what they understand as 'self declaration' will undermine sex segregation in certain services, which has been achieved by campaigning over a long period.
Point 5: The Equality Act, bitches! Why are you worried that sex as a protected characteristic is undermined by ending sex as a commonly understood biological category? 'Surely they should' understand that if 'sex' doesn't mean sex, sex as a protected characteristic remains completely understandable as sex and there is no possible change in what sex means to people who have a sex?
Point 5: 'male-bodied' is not a real thing, signalled by these speech marks. Although I don't actually address this and why some people may think that people male at conception have male bodies.
Point 6: GC feminists [leaving off the speech marks this time] want every protected characteristic in the Equality Act to be treated the same [eh?] when they have relationships with each other, e.g. gender reassignment wouldn't exist without sex, and religion is a reason why people express homophobic beliefs. I imply that no gender critical feminist has ever thought any of this. Intersectionality, therefore messiness. Inequality experiences are individual because of the messy interaction of these characteristics. I imply that any attempt to actually group people and define them as disadvantaged is doomed because of this comfortable messiness - what's the point in trying to say that women are disadvantaged, or gay people have particular barriers to overcome, when black women are more disadvantaged than either? Again, I imply that no GC feminist has ever thought that it's possible to acknowledge any other disadvantage or oppression other than sex-based oppression. And somehow, that because of intersectionality, it becomes impossible to define ANY specific group disadvantage.
Point 7: Have trans and women's rights 'simply' collided? I don't answer this.
Point 8: sex and gender. Second wave feminists all said that discrimination was socially based not biologically based. [Erm - I'd argue that feminists said that the biological differences between men and women did exist, but were negligibly important in MOST circumstances and shouldn't result in daft stereotypes or discrimination.]
Point 9: Therefore feminism made discrimination on biological grounds easier to argue for [But not easier to do, eh? Thanks to feminists, we've got the Sex Discrimination Act, maternity leave, the Equality Act, all of which acknowledge that differences do exist between men and women and define the times when that matters.]
Point 10: intersectionality; black and other minority groups in feminism did not have enough of a voice. [Agreed. Was feminism worse than other areas of society in that regard?]
Point 11: intersectionality meant that feminism no longer equalled an 'essentialised appeal to an idealised womanhood'. [SORRY? is this about that book the Wise Wound and appeals to the sisterhood? That's a massive distortion of a strand of feminism that sought to find dignity in aspects of female biology that previously were hidden, othered and made disgusting. Which has at times had an overlap with an analysis that says stereotypes of women are rooted in biological reality, but which are trying to do different things.]
Point 12: 'woman' and 'man' were categories that are socially constructed. [Not exactly. Woman and man remained words describing particular categories. There are social constructions around these categories and it's pretty hard to separate those in any culture from the categories themselves, but they are not the same.]. Intersectionality, so: 'the complexity of inequality, the fluidity of identity, and the role and limits of gender as a category of critical analysis.' So woman as a real category that can produce eggs, has a rapeable cunt, a weaker body and an impregnatable uterus has no real importance any more because it's all so COMPLICATED.
Point 13: intersectionality has killed off sex/gender as different things completely, absolutely and totally, so why is anyone still talking about it.
Point 14: 'Bodies exist, and their forms diverge in sexually recognizable patterns.' I'm not going to discus what these are or any of the implications. Obvs.
Point 15. Laqueur - history of sex as being considered as one, a sex and a defective version. Two sex concept came later. 'There is evidence' of a three-sex concept in some cultures.
Point 16: Sex is real, differences between men and women exist, but because people have different ideas about these categories, it's impossible to say what these differences really are. [Big fat hairy male bollocks, or big fat eggy female ovaries, to this].
Point 17: nature and nurture. Another tricky debate, which proves that tricky debates are too tricky to have.
Point 18: we have more technology and understanding of neurology and cognition. [missing link] We think differently about mind and body these days. [missing link] Gender and sex should be thought about differently too.
Point 19 - [the big one, for me] - if we take sex as a concrete reality with some unchanging existence beyond what we think about it, we end up 'excluding' trans people from their acquired gender. [Yes! How right you are! Not that I think 'exclusion' from a sex is actually a thing, it's an emotional way of putting a fact, but I agree with you].
Point 20 - [I'm struggling to understand this one]. If we say sex just means biological sex, then we can't talk about discrimination based on gender stereotypes. [I haven't got this. I can see that it's related to points 8 and 9 above, but I just don't get it. Probably my lack of knowledge of case law related to the Sex Discrimination Act. But I don't see why acknowledging biological sex makes me 'narrow' - after all, there is nothing more inclusive than saying that every human has a sex - and I don't see why saying that biological sex has a definition separate from stereotypes doesn't allow us to talk about discrimination. Are we at intersectionality again?]
Point 21:I'm not a terf.
I'm beginning to think that one of the problems with genderism is the tendency of lawyers to write about philosophy (cf Alex Thing at Keele). I know at least one philosopher who is a complete genderist. I'd rather read his stuff.