I also have empathy for one of the people in particular lashing out in the twittersphere against this book. I stress empathy, and in no way endorsement of their actions.
If this subject is very, very close to home and family, a-la-Susie-Green type of close, as a parent you're probably doing your very best to protect your own family the best way you can.
And depending on who the people you've turned to for support in that situation (ie Mermaids, GenderedIntel) you're going to have a particular worldview. Particularly if you've blocked anyone who doesn't affirm your worldview and that of your friends.
To an extent that you probably can't lift back out of the situation and see a wider picture.
You might not be able to see that support for your own child in their chosen path may a) affect a wider group of people because of what your individual child wants, in terms of access to single-sex space, etc and b) taps into an ideology which is currently damaging other children and young adults, particularly females.
And you probably can't see that your argument that calls Rachel's work part of An extreme ideology that explicity targets children and includes the claim that Rachel is denying autistic people can have agency over who they wish to be is starting to stray into suggesting that you should always validate, creating a fantastical land of 'agency' that denies reality. And is the extreme ideology.
The messages of this book must be hard to argue against without arguing against yourself.
Or without explosing an truly shaky-foundational ideological, political stance, as Jo Swinson's interview this morning exposed.
All you have left in your toolbox is lashing out.