Firstly, that biased report has been widely debunked - please use the search function.
Secondly, the relevant comparator for female people as to whether introducing trans identifying males into female-only spaces is not "not as bad as other males", it is "no worse than females". Diluting our protections by less than you would if you included all men is still worse for women (original sex based meaning).
But even if trans women did not pose any increased risk as all (a proposition that ahas already been falsified by the non zero number of additional attacks that trans women's inclusion have added to the risks women face), so what?
As a female person, I already appreciate many male people are not a risk to me. I still do not see an argument for one specific group of those male people to be given, on a self identfied basis, access to formerly female-only protections and opportunities when no others are.
Because as I said, I'm happy to accept gender existing as someting different to sex. I simply do not see the logic by which you can claim on the one hand gender is different to sex, then on the other claim that the rights and protections that exist to mitigate sex-based risks and inequalities should somehow be treated as if gender was interchangeable with sex.
Seems very much like having your cake and eating it, no?
Gender is nothing to do with sex when making the argument that trans people want to be treated differently to their own sex, but is entirely interchangeable with sex when making the argument for trans people to just be grouped in with the sex they want to be seen as?
And finally, can you describe some of these "commonalities" are between trans women and female people such that female people would agree they are more significant than the differences, andf such that we do not equally see the same "commonalities" in other groups of men as well?
Because for most female people - a perspective I realise you do not and can never have, but I hope you are intelligent enough to accept exists just as much as the perspecive of trans women exists - the most significant challenges, inequalities, risks and limitations we face as "women" are not the social ones that trans women may also opt into experiencing because of their gender presentation, but the ones that we cannot avoid because of our sex and how society reacts to it. So to me it is entirely justified that women (in the original sex based meaning) should have rights, protections and opportunities that are specific to our sex to mitigate the challenges we face because of our sex.
Can you explain why, given that you agree that sex and gender are different and that trans women do not experience their "womanhood" (whatever that is to you) in the same way that women in the original sex-based meaning experience our sex, it is nevertheless so important to you that the trans woman's experience of "womahood" should be the only defining one, and that female people must fit ourselves somehow within that rather than having our own language to describe our own experiences, and our own rights to support us as we fight with our own sex-based challenges?