@annejumps "Oh it's all ridiculous, I'm not even sure where to start."
Same, I do a lot of headdesk-ing in my mind - not only about this topic.
The conversation about looks and also the co-opting of IK by the TRA centers very much on a debate about mainstream beauty standards.
The concept goes as follows: women shouldn't wonder when someone looks male, because that's just a superficial beauty standard, women can all look differently [latter part is of course correct].
The conclusion they draw is that it affects all women who look different from the mainstream when other women question their presence in women's spaces.
Thus: "transphobia also affects women who look different because they are being questioned, too". (and the other conclusion is that it's better to welcome TW into women's spaces because whom you suspect to be a TW could be a non-typical woman....).
Completely left out is the important part where women hadn't been so vigilant about neutral looks before, because it was usually obvious that only women are in women's spaces and anyone not looking "typical" (but not clearly male, either) would very likely be a woman, too.
I think that now rather more women who don't look "feminine" are under closer observation by other women because they have more reason to doubt than they used to have before. That means the TRA-arguments have divided women unnecessarily, too, because everyone is more concerned about the negatives than ever.
(Obviously I have no clear definition of "mainstream", "feminine" etc, this is just a general layout of trying to see the structure of the arguments.)
Is there any other source than an article in "Hindustan Times" where IK said others considering IK "trans" would be shameful for IK's family?
I do try to follow the threads but I could have missed that.