I'm sorry for your experiences, Canadian.
I wonder, from the above, what you understand by intersectional and inclusive? Both have been oversimplified in recent years. Above, you appear to think that centering females in feminism opposes intersectionality and inclusion: that they're mutually exclusive? This seems like an odd take which misunderstands both words.
Intersectionality, as I see it, isn't so much an act or identity as a critical lens through which to understand how different axes of oppression interact. And you have no way of knowing PPs' understanding of, views on and - yes - their active support for women also impacted by race or disability, or for transmen and non-binary females etc. You certainly have no reason to assume they exclude these (I don't know of any GC feminist who does). You don't even know for sure that PPs don't advocate for transwomen in other contexts outside what they term feminism. All you know is that they exclude transwomen from their understanding of feminism. This is surely valid - unless you're a believer in thought crime! To say this proves that they're, by definition, not "inclusive", is pretty unconvincing and, to be honest, does an huge injustice to all those other vectors - race, disability etc. - by centering trans males alone as somehow synonymous with inclusion.
Which leads me to the misunderstanding of "inclusion". It disturbs me that so many people nowadays don't/won't acknowledge that inclusion requires, almost by definition, exclusion. There is no holistic, all-encompassing anything except, well, "humanity". Not even in Star Trek! To use the word so simplistically is dangerously idealistic and practically speaking, illogical. We're grouped and categorised in a myriad of ways, for an infinity of reasons. And we exclude in order to include. This is the case in positive discrimination (whatever you think of that), putting a disruptive student in time-out, removing three seats in the cinema to create one disabled space etc. In many cases, exclusion is what enables inclusion. GC feminism includes women suffering from trauma who are physiologically unable to engage with unknown males - surely you must recognise that their response to their past experiences is as valid as yours?! It excludes males to enable this. It's at least as inclusive as your own feminism in this sense - more so, if we assess it on numbers alone (stats and survey indicate).
This bizarrely unthinking equation of transwomen with "inclusiveness" pretty much epitomises the very centering of (I'd say also mostly white, middle class) males over and above other demographics that feminism has always sought - continues to try to - counter.
It's such a maddening, offensive buzzword.
It's lazy as anything.