Quoting the whole of this post, sorry, because I want to pick up on a couple of points here.
Regarding the different approaches of human rights organsations in the developing and developed world, this strikes me as part compartmentalisation, part pragmatism, in the sense of wanting to focus on what they see as the most serious threats to human rights.
In the developing world, there is no question that women and girls without access to safe, hygienic sanitation facilites are some of the most marginalised people in society. There is no equivalent in the developed world to the risks that women and girls without access to toilets must take when they need to empty their bladder or bowels, or change their sanitary protection. The risk of being raped whilst partially exposed in the open air is significant. And funnily enough, there don't seem to be many birth registered males identifying as women or girls in those societies. Trans activists will tell you that this is because it is too dangerous to be trans in these societies, without acknowledging that it is too dangerous to be female in these societies, but women and girls have no choice. I think international human rights organisations take a more reality-based, sex-realist approach to issues arising in those countries because there is no doubt that these women and girls are the most marginalised, and because there is no significant trans population with competing needs. They take a different approach in developed countries, where women and girls aren't being confined to menstrual huts or at serious risk of being raped every time they need to use the toilet, and where the prevailing narrative is that the trans population - which is much more significant in developed countries than it is in developing countries - is the most oppressed and marginalised.
I think, however, that it is dangerous to take a view that just because women and girls are better protected in countries like the UK than they are in developing countries, that they are not oppressed or discriminated against. That is a kind of complacency we cannot afford.
Regarding the views of certain posters in this thread and others, I would prefer to call them "pro Labour" than trans activist. I do take your point that when certain information is known, for example about the impact on women of not having access to single sex rape crisis support, if you fail to adopt a pro women stance, you are by default adopting a pro trans stance. Because the pro trans stance is that which is adopted by most organisations today, which is why women don't have access to single sex support, and so either you accept the status quo or you stand up and say "this is wrong".
I think what frustrates me about the political aspect of this debate is the implication that any woman who feels unable to vote Labour due to their policy positions on sex and gender is either an idiot or a closeted Tory.
That is absolutely not the right way to convince people of your point of view.
It's 14 years since Gordon Brown called Gillian Duffy a "bigoted woman" for being concerned about immigration. It's nearly 10 years since the "metropolitan elite" started openly sneering at the stupid idiots who wanted to leave the EU.
Have we not all learned by now that saying that someone only holds the stance they hold because they are either too stupid to understand the issues at stake or because it is a pathetic figleaf to conceal the fact that they are a raging right wing bigot is absolutely not going to bring them round to your point of view?
If I wanted to persuade someone to vote Labour despite their policy positions on sex and gender, I would say something like this:
"I understand why you feel the way you do about single sex spaces, transgender healthcare and the risk of self ID. Of course everybody's rights should be fairly balanced, and if people don't feel that Labour has got the balance right between trans rights and women's rights, that's something Labour needs to address. But there's still quite a way to go until the general election and this debate is rapidly evolving. A few years ago the Tories wanted to bring in self ID and a trans inclusive conversion therapy ban. They scrapped those policies. Labour does seem to still be more in favour of those policies but there's been a lot of position shifting over recent months and weeks, particularly since the Cass report came out. There's still room for their position to shift further as we get closer to the election. So perhaps you should keep an open mind at this stage and judge them on the contents of their election manifesto when it actually comes out. And do write to your Labour candidate about this, and raise it with anyone who knocks on your door. Make your views heard!"
And then I would be writing to my own Labour MP or candidate, and anyone else in the Labour party I could think of, saying, "I fully plan to vote Labour in the next election but when I talk to other people I'm hearing so many concerns about this gender issue. They don't know what you mean when you say you've dropped plans for self ID but still plan to modernise the Gender Recognition Act, or when you say you will implement the recommendations in the Cass report but still plan to introduce a trans conversion therapy ban. A lot of women would really like to see the Equality Act clarified so that they know that biological sex is actually a protected category. You could win over these undecided voters by taking a more pro-woman approach than you currently are. Women are 51% of the electorate, don't forget."
At the end of the day, it's not up to women to put their concerns to one side so they can vote for Labour. It's up to Labour to come up with policies which give women the confidence they need to be able to vote for Labour, without worrying that Labour will then implement all these pro-trans/anti-woman policies they've been equivocating about as soon as they get into power.
Because Labour have form for this. In 2017 they sat on the fence over Brexit, saying they would implement the result of the referendum to satisfy leavers whilst leaving just enough doubt in the minds of remainers to get them to vote Labour in the hopes of getting a soft Brexit. And then after the election, all those remainers who had lent their votes to Labour were told they had voted to "get Brexit done" and had to sit back and watch as Labour did very little to stop the UK from hurtling towards the cliff edge.
So, no, I don't trust Labour. For me, vague statements about self ID not being a priority and implementing the Cass report are not unequivocal enough to satisfy me that it is safe to vote for Labour. I don't want to vote Labour and then be told, a few weeks later, that this means I believe trans women are women, support self ID and want a trans inclusive conversion therapy ban, because Labour have been clear that these are its positions. In fact, in the absence of a clear statement that Labour's position has changed and a commitment not to do these things, I consider that by voting Labour I would be voting for those things.