I quite enjoyed this one - it's so far above the usual quality of argument we see here, and I think that deserves some acknowledgement. It made me think, at least.
both rest on 'you're not from here; your culture is different; you can't know what it is to have grown up 'over here'/had period pains/gone through labour.
The more precise analogy here would be a (let's say) second-generation immigrant not only asserting a British identity, but also saying their ancestry itself was British, and that that ancestry is what defines quintessential Britishness.
both reject difference or change in favour of sameness or stasis. 'You look and talk and think differently/you underwent a journey to get here/I can't fully relate to you'.
Most of your examples above as written represent less a rejection of difference than an honest acknowledgement of it (that's not to say they'd be appropriate to voice in most contexts). But the key question is, therefore, where such thoughts lead. To take the immigrant analogy: do these thoughts present a moral imperative to embrace and learn from multiculturalism, or a xenophobic "rejection" of it? This question is one of re/de-constructing a national identity. In contrast, women are being asked to 1) deny their own reality on an individual level (to accept that "woman" is internal and subjective, not physical and objective with the occasional outlier) and 2) surrender their legal protections and political voice (both of which exist only in contradistinction to men). Neither 1) not 2) is analogous to xenophobia. Lastly, whereas our country has always been a delicious melting pot of different invaders and visitors imperceptibly shaping whatever indeterminate mishmash British culture now is... women have always been female. Until now.
both rest not just on culture but on biology: 'Your genes are different than mine/your genotype for phenotype A, B or C aren't identical to mine'.
I'd actually challenge this and say that "racism" is a better description of this than "xenophobia". Racism - by definition - is universally condemned as empty prejudice, because of the absence of meaningful difference - indeed, race itself is, arguably, constructed to a significant degree. In contrast, in our case, there is difference. We'd prefer not to highlight it and obsess about genes, of course, but posts like yours regrettably force us to.
both are territorial: 'i sweated blood as a member of this sex/to make it in this society - who are you to come here and demand a seat at the table'?
And this is where that genetic difference becomes pertinent. Because women's genetic difference has led to exactly the kind of prejudiced assumptions that racism upholds: "They're inferior, they're best suited to physical 'labour' (wherever on the plantation or through reproduction), they shouldn't vote or own property" etc. Feminists spent the last century arguing that our genes make us different but equal. In the early 1900s, their challenge was to persuade society of their equality. We got there in some respects (the vote - only held for a precious, pathetic 100 years - and an unqualified right to mortgages etc. - enjoyed for about 50!) But the fight for "equality" is far from won (just read "Invisible Women"). What better counter-attack on women's equality than to deny their difference in the first place, so they can no longer distinguish themselves to fight for it? Incredibly, it seems that we're back to the "different but equal" battle of last century - but fighting it on both fronts now, reduced to defending our own "difference" even as we seek equality despite it. A patriarchal masterstroke, some may say.
both are suspicious of the reasons for transformation. 'You just want the perks of being female; you just want to look up our skirts in the toilet; you just migrated here from Guatemala for financial stability.'
Here, you rely on over-generalisation. There's a big difference between your reductive examples of damning prejudice above, and what feminists are typically (note: there's always outliers) saying, which is more akin to, "I worry that some Guatemalans may be coming over who aren't remotely in financial need," and which also often includes, "I'm really concerned about the impact that may be having on those Guatemalans who really do need our support," (AKA trans-identifying teens, the deeply dysphoric transsexual etc.)
both demonize, aggressively overstating the chance that the person has or will commit a crime. (Migrants: no need to give examples, just read the news. Trans people: 'you just want access to 'our spaces'' (i.e. the spaces where women/cis women enjoy their privacy from all men, cis or trans) so you can assault us'.
Again we see here the conveniently reductive phrasing that I'm sure matches some xenophobes, but doesn't actually reflect what the majority of GC feminists are saying. But more importantly, the stats don't lie: males 1) commit 98% of sexual crime, using 2) their up to 150% greater physical power. I bloody hope you're not saying the same about Guatemalan immigrants. 1) would be downright racist, and 2) the plot of a very curious superhero movie indeed.
both minimize or even deny, the need for the transition: 'No child is born trans/those parents were homophobic as the kid was just gay/trans women are men with their dicks lopped off/people should stay in their home country and migration is too dangerous'.
This one's so arbitrary as an analogy that I think my favourite response is PP's kid asking about why there's no tackling in tennis: there's rather too much to unpick. Certainly it's another false equivalency. But to take just one element... I think there's an interesting "tell" here in your "migration is too dangerous" - AKA, the feminist argument that remaining in your original gender may be more beneficial than transitioning. The key point here is that, whereas the xenophobic dismissal of migration rarely comes with concerted efforts by the xenophobe to improve the lot of Guatemalans, many feminists are fighting tooth and claw to ensure vulnerable children have the necessary provision to prevent them feeling compelled to undergo brutal and often life-limiting surgeries, and to have access to a better life through other means.
both hysterically fear that the trans person/migrant will corrupt innocents: 'they will indoctrinate children in school/they will spread religious fundamentalism'.
Has there been a 4000% percentage increase (ref. the Tavistock data) in American (I assume you're in the US) children taking dangerous journeys, with a significant proportion suffering lasting physical harm as a result? Are adults promulgating the belief through school, charitable campaigns and televised interviews that, if they don't do this, they may well commit suicide?
I mean, that would be horrifying, right?
Right?!
Edited for typos.