There are some great insights in that piece.
“There is a reason why, from the very beginning, rather than target actual transphobes, trans activists targeted women who wanted to be kind, but who also made it clear that we were thinking about the logical implications of gender identity as opposed to merely nodding along. Contrary to the “both sides” narrative, critics of gender ideology weren’t singled out for being extremist, but for being too reasonable. This was viewed by trans activists as particularly threatening, and in a way, they were right. We didn’t threaten their livelihoods and safety; we threatened the careful tending, maintenance and growth of their lie.”
“Every single person who has ever lectured a feminist on the need for “more light, less heat” needs to grasp this: the last thing people who have staked their entire identities on a lie want is light, even when passed through the softest of filters. That’s why, whenever organisations such as Woman’s Place UK sought to discuss a way forward, trans activists responded with more and more heat. Light, to trans activism, is an existential threat.”
“Constant hyperbole is necessary to trans activism. It perpetuates the spiral. Were the spiralling to ever stop, you would have to acknowledge that the problem is not that some mythical bunch of women on Mumsnet want you dead. It’s that your sexed body, no matter what you do to it, is the same sexed body it always was, and how others perceive you depends on uncontrollable, ever-changing relationships, not blanket endorsement.”
“this world is the only one we have; reframing it as “anti-trans” is a profoundly maladaptive response to the fact that we’re all just human beings, not seahorses or clownfish.”