It wasn't my intention to be disingenuous. It was my intention to point out that simplistic statements like "unless you have a uterus you are not a woman" are silly.
On your question, probably the latter. I think there is a difference between biological gender and the social idea of gender. I think you can't alter the former but you can alter the latter. There are issues that need to be looked at around trans people and access to certain spaces (such as prisons and competing in sports) but these are not major issues to be overcome and the hysteria that surrounds them is ridiculous.
I find the vilification of trans people abhorrent. It does remind me of the views on homosexuals a generation ago (they are weird, they are perverts, they will abuse your children etc).
What harm comes of allowing people to choose their gender? (leaving aside prisons and sports as mentioned above). Why does it matter if you don't think they are really a woman, as long as they do?
(These are not specifically questions for you)
For me that there has to be a fundamental base layer of knowledge with which we are all willing to subscribe to (or at least the vast vast majority of us, there's always one like) for without so humanity and society simply becomes unviable.
That knowledge has to continue, as it largely has been, to be built on science.
I have no problem with live and let live, if a person wants to represent themselves as the opposite of their biological sex then I am more than happy to accommodate that and show them all the respect and courtesy that I would afford to anyone else. If however they start to try and blur the line between what has been established as scientific fact and what is opinion then that's when I start to get my back up. When phrases like "social construct" or "theres no such thing as biological sex" start getting thrown out, that's when the kickback happens.
We can't allow movements to try and alter or undermine the factual evidence which we have already banked and used to build that foundational level of knowledge. By all means build as many layers of compassion and acceptance and courtesy as you like on top of it but do so without altering that base layer because to do so would completely alter the balance of power from knowledge and understanding to opinion and impulse. That has the potential to be very dangerous.
Without our understanding of biological sex we wouldn't know the correct gender specific procedures, surgeries or medicine to apply that has helped save millions of lives throughout our existence. In much the same way that if most people still believed the world was flat, aviation probably wouldn't exist as it does today because pilots would simply be afraid that they would fly off the edge of the world, we would be far worse off without an acceptance of the fact that there is a difference between a man and a woman (also allowing for intersex which is very real but nothing at all to do with the trans movement).
It's very important that we don't try to undo that work or even bring it into question in the quest for a more accepting world.
The layers of acceptance and courtesy etc.. make the world a more pleasant place to inhabit and are very important but that base layer of knowledge is what makes it viable! Without it there is nothing to build those layers of acceptance etc.. on.
Acceptance of trans people will bed in slowly over the years and decades just like it did with gay people. You can't turn a ship on a dime, you have to alter the course by a couple of degrees and soon enough you are in a completely different place. Society is like that on most things especially those initially seen as radical.
I'm on-board just so long as the integrity of that base layer isn't in any way brought into question.