Alex I'm really tired so this may be incoherent and rambly, but I am going to try to explain this to you as it feels from this side - my side.
However I do think some GC things can be a bit reductive - the cervical cancer # in my opinion was just a bit mean.
See, here's the thing: some women are, and speak, Gujerati. It's very important, clearly, that they can access excellent medical care, and we need leaflets, translation services, and medics who understand the language and the cultural needs to see that that happens.
What we don't do is insist that all needs, for all women, should be framed so that they suit first and foremost the needs of Gujerati women. Nor are they aiming all medical materials around eg family planning to meet the cultural and social needs of observant Catholic, or Orthodox Jewish, or Muslim women above all else. When arranging breast screening advice, nobody stops and wonders if it's sensitive to phrase all literature for women who have already lost one or both breasts to cancer. (Bluntly, they're expected to woman up and get on with it, in that last case.) It's aimed at the wide average. It's aimed at the majority. We would hopefully have smaller leaflet runs, and training, to meet the needs of smaller minority subsets within that larger group, so their needs can be sensitively and respectfully met, too. You don't create a leaflet, though, for millions and millions of people, and a site directed at their needs, and frame the whole thing in a way that suits one specific minority. Especially if that makes millions of women feel dehumanised.
The only minority with the power to force all other areas affecting women's lives into pretzels, to serve that tiny minority, are led by people born with penises. I'm sorry, but this is part of a far wider assault on the language commonly and ordinarily used by women for generations, in order to define our lives and our experiences; the aim is to alter the definition and understanding of the very word 'woman' so it no longer refers to a sex class at all. At its core, what it is about is the very word 'woman' itself, as meaning a female person. It's an assault on the connection between sex and category, in order that people born male may claim it. And that is not in the interests of women born, if you consider oppression based on sex, and males to be the oppressors - which is very, very extensively evidenced. It erases women as a sex class. That's explicitly the end point aim, actually. To replace sex with gender identity. And that is a threat to women's capacity to defend our rights, if you believe oppression is based on sex. You've talked about men treating you poorly, and that sexism impacted you as soon as you left a single sex environment. Your gender identity hasn't determined your oppression, then, has it? Biology has.
You know how claiming to be colour blind is racist, because if you can't identify race as a factor, you can't name the racism either? Sexism and sex is the same. It matters, and therefore saying only female people - not even women; biologically female people - have cervixes should not be seen as hate speech. I find the erasure of women as a sex class more than upsetting, quite honestly. I find it alarming. Again, I totally respect the need to provide alternative literature and sensitive care to you. That shouldn't mean the care to all the rest of us, and our ability to define ourselves at all by our biology, is recast as hateful. It's essential to our defending ourselves from patriarchy. Because we can't defend what we can't define: the definition of woman matters. Asserting that definition matters.
I would completely support sensitive, thoughtful leaflets for trans men who need cervical smears, mammograms, and contraception, and I would also welcome training for practice staff on how to send reminders that respected the gender identity. Pain should never be caused wholly avoidably. But what about women's pain, in being dehumanised to the point that we are no longer allowed to define ourselves as a sex class - just a selection of body parts - especially when we believe naming that class is essential if we are to be able to assert our interests, as a group, and name our oppression?
Nobody, I hope, wanted to be mean to trans men with that one. It was a push back against the colonisation if women, as a definable group of people. A small minority of people born male seek to define what a woman is. To allow that would be, in my view, the ultimate in patriarchal oppression, quite honestly. It isn't okay for people who have lived from birth with male privilege to start demanding that women stop using perfectly ordinary, perfectly essential everyday language to determine who we are, solely so they can co-opt it. Woman is the word always used for us. It isn't okay to render the very word itself, in relation to our biology, and our health, and our liberation struggle, problematic, and only to be used in contexts male people have pre-approved.
It really, really is not about being hurtful to trans men.
Anyway, again, sorry this is so endlessly long and rambly. It's been a horrendously long day. I hope the general gist makes sense.