@DC1888, thank you, quite genuinely, for posting specifics & explanations. This is a rare thing indeed on these boards, & really really helps me to check & clarify my own thinking with more meaningful reference to your perspective than the usual generalisations permit.
I've thought about each of the below, & can see how you could come to your interpretations (which I've recorded as 1), but also that there are alternative interpretations (which I've recorded as 2). In the light of the scope for different interpretations, I do find your condemnation of the quotes as "unacceptable", with the emphatic "seriously" suggesting that this is utterly self-evident, a little worrying. We really need to be able to debate these complex issues, & to distinguish between differing opinions rapidly typed in a fast-moving chat, & actual bigotry. Without this, we risk losing the ability to voice concerns, & to recognise & name what is truly "unacceptable" in political & social discourse - & that could lead down a very dark road indeed.
"I am gender critical. Proud to support the LGB community but not those who invade female spaces."
ONE) So just LGB support... T don't count.
TWO) I don't see this as an outright dismissal of T people on principle, but of the principles the T has, regrettably, become so aligned & synonymous with as to be almost inextricable from them - &, specifically, of those who aggressively enforce those principles. I agree that the language is emotive, & recognise that there's no qualifying acknowledgment of everything else the T represents or exploration of ways in which they could be supported, but to condemn this as "unacceptable" feels like saying that a woman can't refuse support of a movement that is impinging on her rights (at least without her including a qualifying explanation that separates that movement from other individuals within it who don't subscribe to that view). Such silencing would, surely, itself be unacceptable in a democracy?
"Most straight men aren't going to date a male regardless of how they dress....Other men are completely disinterested in the whole thing and just see TW as a weird "fella in a dress".
ONE) So a man is gay for being interested in a transwoman (or a weird "fella in a dress")? According to a poll done 3% of straight men say they would, and that's likely to grow given how relatively new this is in mainstream society.
TWO) Yes, I'd personally argue that that's the definition of "gay" - attracted to the male body - & I actually think that there's a valid argument that implying that this is offensive, & that attraction to gender supercedes sexual attraction, is, itself, homophobic (note, though, I'm not just dismissing the phrasing as "unacceptable" - many more words & time would be needed to get to the bottom of that one!) "Fella in a dress" is more difficult - I find it distasteful on balance, because it does have a strong whiff of ridicule in many contexts (& post about it in more detail on the archdeacon thread) - but I honestly did read this example simply as representing someone else's - men's - perspective & language. And unambiguously "unacceptable to say" in this context? Again, no.
"I bet the men who are dating you are all “TERFs” as well - I bet they don’t date male women!"
ONE) From being a weird "fella in a dress" to, "male women".
TWO) "Male women" is used here because language is becoming so mangled that it's increasingly hard to express ideas like this one: that most men are attracted to women, & that "women" now includes male-bodied people. I'd say another equally valid perspective (again, I'm not saying right or wrong, but using this to say that all the judgements we make of this nature exist within a complex societal, cultural framework with its own, arguably arbitrary, standards) is that it's "insulting" to women that our word has been appropriated in such a way that we're forced into contortions like this - & insulting again that, forced into using such contortions to defend our rights, we're condemned for this.
In summary, I'm not saying I'd use the quotes above, or even that I agree with all of the language used. But this is different to "unacceptable". To call something "unacceptable" will always be a value judgement, and one with huge implications. One of our concerns here is that the current movement has relied on the idea of "unacceptable" language to stymy debate, & I think this has led to a backlash in women using stronger language than they otherwise would have done, out of fear, anger - &, in some cases, sheer necessity. Context is also everything. Parts of the above would be anathema to me in some contexts, & maybe to the posters quoted, too - but in this context, in an internet forum, & to the degree you suggest? No.
To not take all this into account, & instead to support silencing these voices could, itself, be seen as "unacceptable".