Re the SDP: The sticking point for for me is that they’re anti EU
Um, at this post-Brexit point, how does any party's pro/anti-Brexit policy matter? It's done. At least until you're talking about rejoining, which no party is yet?
the assumption here is that there is some universal woman-way to think and feel. This makes no sense.
I'm going to let TistheSeason have some slack, and try to address what she is seeing. I know the approved gender critical line is that there's no "inner female soul". But there clearly are female-typical and male-typical behaviours. (Sorry!)
There are feminine males and masculine females. And that is very strongly correlated with homosexuality.
I'm pretty certain the transwomen TistheSeason are thinking of are homosexual - the prototypical old-school transwoman is basically an "extreme homosexual". And, yes, they can be quite feminine.
But I'd say there's no clear line between them and other males. If you're going to claim they have a "female gender identity", then so do a lot of gay men, and some straight. So it's not so much a "female" identity as a demeanour more common in male-attracted people, but even then not exclusively. And a lot of women don't have it... Having this demeanour no more makes you female than having a female typical height of 5'4" does. And there's no way to screen for it - whereas screening by sex is easy, and that correlates very strongly to behaviour for the population as a whole.
The problem is the homosexual transwoman is now the minority - there are a lot more heterosexual males than homosexual out there, and heterosexuals are increasingly claiming trans identities. And those "transwomen" act extremely masculinely. They're almost "extreme heterosexuals", tbh - so attracted to females they try to become their fantasy.
Anyone making "transwomen" policies thinking of 1990s homosexuals is way behind the times. Giving slack on opposite-sex access for those "real" transwomen opens the door for far too many.
Here's more on it, by Bailey and Blanchard:
One problem with the current mainstream narrative regarding gender dysphoria is that it makes no distinctions among apparently very different kinds of persons. For example, Bruce Jenner appeared to be a very masculine man, an Olympic athlete who was married to three different women and had six children with them, before becoming Caitlyn Jenner. In contrast, Jazz Jennings, a natal male, was so feminine that she earned a diagnosis of gender identity disorder at the age of four. She is attracted to males. Jenner and Jennings are so different in their presentation and history that it is surprising to us that anyone thinks they have the same condition. Jenner and Jennings are examples of two very different kinds of gender dysphoria that have been scientifically well studied, and have fundamentally different motivations, clinical presentations, and likely causes.
The failure of so many therapists and activists to acknowledge this distinction is disturbing for at least two reasons. First, it suggests they are either ignorant of relevant scientific evidence or are purposefully ignoring it. Second, failure to make scientifically valid and fundamental distinctions among different kinds of gender dysphoric persons can only prevent progress toward finding the best approach to helping each. Measles, influenza, and strep throat are all associated with fever. But if we had merely lumped them together as “fever,” we would not have effective treatments for them.