Right, I think I am probably about the 10th person responding directly to this post now, and I don't hold out much hope that @DC1888is actually reading the replies or taking anything in, but just on the off chance, here's my 2p worth.
The main difference between you and the women you dismiss as "TERFs" is a lack of critical thinking on your part.
You refer to situations where you appear to believe it is inappropriate for "natural born males" (by which I assume you mean simply "males") to be in women's spaces, and the need for a "rigorous test" to "ensure that the transition is legitimate".
I can only assume that you believe this is the "middle ground", and that "TERFs" undermine their own arguments about single sex spaces and sports and safeguarding with their crazy Bible belt belief that humans can't ever change sex and their unkind characterisation of trans women as "men in dresses".
Your starting point appears to be that we should all accept that trans women are women, but that there needs to be some safeguarding to ensure that only genuine trans women can access women's spaces and to protect the integrity of women's sport.
This is THE WRONG WAY ROUND.
This is, in fact, precisely how we have ended up in the mess we are currently in.
The Gender Recognition Act introduced onto our statute books the concept that a person can change their legal sex and therefore a "natural born male", as far as the law is concerned, can be considered as female as your mother.
There appears to have been no impact assessment to consider what effect this would have on women. Women were certainly never asked whether we consented to this. The attitude appears to have been that women's consent was not necessary, and that in any case, the number of people expected to change their legal sex was so small that most of us would never meet one of them.
But of course, it is not about the number of people with a gender recognition certificate, or the number of people who have their male genitals surgically removed, and never has been.
Because nobody is standing on the door of public toilets and changing rooms, checking people's genitals or gender recognition certificates.
As soon as you accept that a male person can be a woman and have access to women's single sex spaces, you have to accept that any male person can have access to women's single sex spaces.
The position that "TERFs" have reached today is that the legislative changes which were introduced without fanfare and without our consent 20 years ago which were expected to only have a tiny impact have actually been disastrous for women and girls.
What SHOULD have happened, is that the legislators should have asked themselves, "Is there any way we can give people the right to be legally considered the opposite sex, which does not have a negative impact on the rights, safety and dignity of the rest of the population, particularly women and girls? If not, we can't do it. If we believe that the impact is minimal but that certain groups are more severely affected, such as religious minorities and survivors of sexual assault, can we accommodate both these groups? If not, do we consider that people who want to change their legal sex are more important than religious minorities and sexual assault survivors, and why?"
That kind of analysis was, to my knowledge, never done.
You can bleat all you like about rigorous tests and being kind but the reality is that no such rigorous tests exist or are capable of being implemented, and it is not kind to throw all these women under the bus just because it is currently more fashionable to care about trans people.
The only difference between you and "TERFs" is that we can see the bloody obvious and we aren't afraid to state it.