Teal, I'd strongly recommend spending a few hours skimming some other threads to get a sense of why posters are responding as they are. I can pretty much guarantee, if you select a good range of thread titles and stay open-minded, that you'll see the following trends, overall:
1) Posters here are aware, like you, that there are different "types" of "trans people". Within these groups...
a) They are largely sympathetic to trans-identifying young people. They have different views on the best way to support them, but there's a majority consensus that straight-talking and/or watchful waiting are far safer for the child concerned than immediate, emphatic validation.
b) A good number are sympathetic to the genuinely dysphoric and fully committed minority who, previously, would have been known as transexuals. Those who are less sympathetic often began from a more sympathetic position, but this has been eroded over the years (please read on...)
c) All but the newest of newcomers are aware of the reams of research and anecdotal evidence indicating that a significant proportion of those now calling themselves "trans" in fact belong to the group previously known as "cross-dressers", and perhaps have AGP. They, understandably, have little patience for this.
2) Posters here are wearily familiar with "visitors" who seek to "understand" or "educate" them. In many such cases, the opening post itself is abusive, patronising or, frankly, offensively dismissive of the views and arguments presented. In almost all, even in the face of good-faith engagement, the visitor's posts degrade into this sooner or later.
2), above, can mean that the nuances of 1) aren't always immediately apparent, as posters have become very cynical over time. This may seem unjust to a genuinely good faith poster, bemused by the sharp responses to an opening post that showed none of these tendencies...
...but your opening post did show them. From the get-go. Here's another list, of the impressions your post gave us:
-
"evil man stealing everyone's rights away from them" - Applying playful hyperbole to women's concerns about the loss of fundamental rights, some of which we gained only in recent decades, comes across as rather disrespectful, and certainly suggests a foregone conclusion as opposed to a desire to listen to and understand those concerns.
-
"Why do you hate the idea of me?" - This reinforces the above a hundredfold in its offensive presumption of irrational prejudice and bigotry.
-
"...will help you understand as much as possible" - This makes the implicit assumption that posters here don't know or engage with trans people themselves; in fact, so many (most?) of us do.
-
"Please don't assume I'm what the internet and the media says I am" - And this makes the quite explicit assumption that posters here lack meaningful research and critical thinking skills and are, instead, swayed by clickbait / political posturing. This couldn't be further from the reality. What drew me to this forum was how (sometimes terrifyingly!) rigorous posters here are in these respects - I've never come across anything remotely like it anywhere else on the internet, bar academic contexts.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
And yet, I read your opening post, saw all this, and thought, as many others will have done, "OK, but even then, they may not be aware they're creating this impression; they may be prepared to engage more meaningfully than others..." And you did get some good answers. They were direct, yes, but honest and fair and, in every case, directly or indirectly, told you we don't "hate" you. Only one opened with FFS - and I hope, given 1) to 4) above, you can see why...
But what followed this?
- "you lot identify me as a woman" - Language doesn't get much more generically disparaging (outside overt insult) than the delightful 'you lot' (I mean, just imagine this being applied to any other group; to trans people, for example). And as a whole, this outright disregarded all the replies thus far, which had told you that, No, we don't.
As if this wasn't enough, next up was:
- "technically there were never single sex spaces to begin with" - By which you can only possibly mean, They may have been written into law, the Supreme Court may have confirmed they always were the law despite others' decision to disregard this law without women's open consent... But despite all this, your legal rights are, I don't know... not real?! not valid?!? And our transgressions into your spaces should be continued on the basis that, I don't know... We got away with it before so why not?!? I mean, what the heck?
Do you realise we've only had women's toilets since the turn of the last century? We got them shortly before the vote, I think. That vote that we've not actually yet held for a full century, by the way. In fact, we've only been able to get mortgages within many of our lifetimes. And we've only been free of from marital rape - in one very real sense, have only been recognised as not our husbands' property - since the early '90s. We know a little something about being seen as sub-human without recognition in law - it really wasn't that long ago that we were actual chattels. Our protections in law have meaning, yet you couldn't have made your disdain for them clearer here.
Then I read the bit about self-ID and began to empathise again despite all the above - but, wow, did you stamp on that, with:
- "as all of you so far have similar narritives in your replies I'm going to assume these are bots. Sorry guys, you can't all share the same similar replies in a short amount of time 😅" - Seriously, where to start with this one? "Narrative"? "Bots"? You know that de-humanisation of women I referred to in 6), above? That dismissal, until all too recently, of their voices as invalid, unthinking and irrational?
Can you see the link I'm making here?
If you can't, it's a hopeless case.
If you can, there are many posters here who will engage with you in the way you claim to want.
But to have a chance of this happening, you need to do your bit, too, and make a genuine effort to understand where we're coming from.
(Here endeth the - hopefully helpful, and not itself similarly patronising - lesson!)