The 'spectrum' argument is one big red herring, IMO.
Biological sex may well exist on a form of spectrum. I'm not a biological scientist. I don't know. (Although judging by Twitter, I wouldn't put too much faith in those who say they are).
Gender, though, does exist as a social construct and its parameters shift with time. It may be that we have no more power to change historically-specific discourses of gender than we do to alter our basic biology, but as a feminist academic, the constricts/stereotypes of gender are social constructs I've spent most of my adult life challenging. As for the intersex/clownfish arguments, I'm surprised to see those who purport to some form of academic background using these to support their absurd pro-trans arguments. Why is it said that exceptions often prove the rule, rather than vice versa?
What is irrefutable, as borne out by a gigantic law of averages and statistics is that: those born female have smaller bodies than men, are generally weaker than men, have less dense muscle-mass than men, have bodies that can be penetrated by men who weaponize their bodies against ours, have less aggressive testosterone in our bodies, ergo are less aggressive than men, are less likely to commit violent crime than men, and by ratio of 98% to 2% are less likely to commit sexual offences than men.
These are all pretty conclusive facts that no amount of 'spectrumming' can take away. Not least, the human race has managed to procreate for hundreds of thousands of years, without apparent confusion, and haven't died out as yet.
TWAW activists are quite possibly using these arguments because all they amount to is a distraction from the key point. That being the safeguarding of women in certain spaces that don't admit men.
It's interesting that even the sex theorist Jonathan Dollimore is critical of queer theory, and was, as far back as 2001.