Your original words: "we advise younger trans adults intending to go stealth to avoid" behaving in a way we feel could put them at risk while doing this (supremely risky thing!) My words: "advise... to break the law". So, yes, you're quite right that I could have worded that better - apologies. I'd prefer the phrase "implicitly condoning"* *now.
But I do still find this in itself concerning. If we take another law - theft - as an analogy, I honestly can't imagine a counsellor admitting to regularly advising that, if a young person is "intending to engage in theft, they should avoid" doing whatever in order to whatever, without any attempt to highlight the issues with the theft itself. That's why I suggest ethical discussion re: consent as an infinitely preferable alternative.
Re: the accusation of "malicious interpretation", please just think about the likelihood - and irony! - of this. I'm the exact same person who posted empathetically a short while earlier - I've not suddenly become malicious or cynical within a very few posts. To assume malicious intent in this context is a surprising and upsetting assumption in itself. My intention remains to be honest and fair-minded. I have serious history for being - probably obsessively & irritatingly - "good faith" (ref. some very long earlier threads, I think under this username?)
None of that precludes strong feelings where safeguarding women and children is concerned.
I'm trying to start from the assumption that your own feelings are very strong indeed for potentially quite distressing reasons. But so are those of all other posters on this thread. We have reams upon reams of evidence of genuinely malicious intent - just Google "Terf Is A Slur". If malice is sheer, unadulterated nastiness for the unpleasantly vicarious sake of it, I've seen oceans of this on the TRA side, and very little, if any, honestly, from "ours".
What I do see on ours is justifiable anger and fear at this threat to our rights and humanity, and deep, deep (and, frankly, pretty rational in the context) cynicism. This must be distressing to read, but your advice is sound: try not to assume malice, but to empathise...
...But also to recognise that the empathy well runs very dry indeed after a certain point. We feel - as you appear to - as if we're fighting for our very existence. Less than a century ago, we couldn't vote. A few decades ago, we belonged to our husbands in the bedroom, slave-like (marital rape - first illegal in '92 or so). Bank accounts and property of our own are fairly recent. In Afghanistan, the people we've lost the language to describe - that single word that we're now bigoted to claim for ourselves, "women" (not cis - that doesn't work here, which leaves us no language with which to describe one of the most oppressed demographics on earth) - can't even speak in public. Meanwhile, over here, a sense of physical safety in public spaces or an enclosed room with a strange man remains a distant, unimaginable dream, and the degree to which this impedes our freedom of movement, is dependent on the whims of predominantly male law-makers. All because of the physical difference you seek to deny.
So it's not about malice. It's really, really not. I hope you can at least make that step - while I'll try to take away, for my part (again, fighting hard against my own learnt wariness and horror at much of what you argue, to give the benefit of the doubt) - the overwhelming challenges of finding a partner in your circumstances, and strength of emotion this clearly catalyses.