He's great; but I really wish he had framed the question as, if my wife now identifies as a man, grows a beard and other body hair, lops off breasts etc, but wants to stay married, does that make me (JC) a gay man in a same sex marriage?
I think the "women must be support humans and accept they are lesbians" bit is always based around the sub-context that women don't have much agency in their relationships, and are in fact lucky to have got married in the first place. Does that make sense? I feel as if it's part of the same culture that accepts men in their middle age marrying twenty year olds as perfectly reasonable, but older woman-younger man relationships are somehow a bit unsavoury, and what's she playing at? Or the culture that requires women to diet and exercise and stay as young looking as possible, all whilst married to some "catch" who barely manages to brush their teeth. Or indeed, a culture that will vilify a woman who leaves the family home and children, but men generally get away with it (morally, and often financially). So women shouldn't have a problem if their husband grows breasts and dresses and behaves in a way that's a complete turn off. They need to check their thinking and adapt.
If the matter was flipped, and all those morally superior lefty men were being asked whether they would be happy to wake up one day to find their wife is now a breastless, bearded "husband", to be told they must be sexually aroused by this person, to be not bothered by their change in manner and behaviour, and to accept that all this time they had been gay, because their "wife" had never been a woman; would they be so quick to condemn these spouses as unloving, unfeeling t*rfs?
It's the other side of the coin of the Owen Jones' of this world telling lesbians they should accept penises, but completely failing to accept that, unless he accepted a male vagina haver as a partner, he would be a transphobe.
It all just boils down to misogyny 101.