I will be called to task for posting a long reply, but this thread covers so much (both in the subject matter and the way it has been handled) that I can't say what I want to say in a shorter one.
The OP of this thread seems to think she has an omniscient perspectives on the opinions of a whole generation, pro-lifers and the position of GCFs on the sex/gender issue. There are sweeping statements which claim to summarise the feelings of these groups, but which are glaringly and offensively inaccurate, as are many of the ‘debating techniques’ used in the course of the thread.
We have had ‘because I said so’, ‘my opinions don’t need facts’ and ‘it doesn’t matter if I have said X before, I am saying Y now, so that’s what matters.’. We’ve had ‘you can’t say that as it’s against the rules of GN’ posing as a counter-argument to opposing points of view.
We’ve had ‘science’ used against pro-lifers, but when the OP was asked to provide some scientific basis for her own argument, she ‘declined’, and used the much-derided FOFO (eff off and find out) approach which is notorious in education circles as being easily translatable as ‘I have no idea’. We were told that Opening Post was intended as the starting point for a debate, but then that the Opening Poster MAY decide to answer difficult questions WHEN she has the time. Not only is shouting like that rude, but so is brushing people who have bothered to respond to an invitation to debate in this condescending manner.
We’ve had insulting remarks made against GCFs thinly disguised as supportive comments to TRAs. Ironically, some of them were self-congratulatory remarks about how only ‘some people’ resort to personal attacks, unlike themselves. Despite the fact that until now I have deliberately stayed away from this thread, and despite the fact that dragging in other threads is ‘against the rules of GN’ when it suits, I was personally singled out for a dig about ‘demanding’ answers, which is something I have never done. Yes, I have directed a question to individuals, and asked why they haven’t answered, but those individuals are vocal proponents of the TRA point of view, and the relevant thread had been very one-sided in support of my OP, and I was genuinely interested in what their view would be. Ironic, really.
As in so many of these threads we hear of how those on the ‘trans’ side of the debate (for want of a better way to put it - I am not saying that the other ’side’ is anti-trans, just for avoidance of doubt) know countless transpeople, have numerous ‘personal contacts in the area’ and that they have access to the thoughts of other people as well as the ability to observe their actions - all of which (they claim) back up their point of view. There is never any explanation of where these credentials come from, and whereas I completely understand a desire to stay anonymous, it seems strange that the rest of us, who also have social and professional lives, also mix with people of all ages, and also have friends have found that people we know have very diverse views on the topic, whatever their age or situation, as has been shown by a number of posters above. This wide range of knowledge and contacts looks a bit, erm, 'thin' when seen in the light of the denial of any knowledge of the Stonewall position on gay rights, (and this echoes a similar denial a while ago on the subject of lesbians being threatened for refusing to have sex with transwomen). These denials were based on ‘I haven’t heard of this so it can’t be happening’, when there is a lot of documented evidence out there, and ‘the gay community’ has been vocal in its opposition to Stonewall and its enforced inclusion of trans rights into what was once a gay rights lobby. OK, none of us (AFAIK) is an expert on any of this (are we?) so can’t be expected to know everything, but arguing so vehemently and claiming to have insider knowledge is incongruous with such an important gap, and suggests that people have only familiarised themselves with the things that suit their viewpoint.
To get to the 'substance' of the OP, IMO no, there is no similarity between Pro-lifers and GCF’s, although there would be a section of a Venn Diagram that included both of them, just as there would be a section that overlapped Pro-lifers and TRAs, and one that included all three.
I don’t think that many large groups of disparate people usually think as one, as is suggested by the OP, but speaking as someone whose friendship group contains many GRFs I can say for sure that none of them are critical of other cultures that accept alternative gender expressions beyond the binary, and none want to shut off support for anyone. The preference would be to give impartial support to those who ask for it, not to leap to any conclusions made by unqualified busybodies.
Again, I know no GCF who refuses to accept any other than 100% transitioned individuals, or deny them surgery, hormones or treatment. I can’t think of a single friend who is anything other than supportive of transpeople - the issue we have is that as things stand, anyone can say they are a woman and enter single-sex spaces with no requirement to prove anything. This, and the fact that the language is being mangled to the point that women are ceasing to exist as a sex-class, and that our rights are further at risk from skewed research figures based on responses from people saying they are female but who have make bodies, hormones and socialisation are our concerns, but these things have been said over and over on these threads, as has the fact that TRAs are unable to define what a woman actually is, despite their vocal support for anyone who ‘just knows they are one’, or who ‘just knows they are not’.
Finally, I can’t speak for Pro-lifers, but as far as I am aware they are united in one thing only - their belief that abortion should not be allowed in law. I don’t share that belief, but I think it is fairly straightforward, and is based on the belief (usually religious) that life begins at conception. I understand their point of view, and their right to hold it, but I don’t think that it has anything in common with the more complex issues surrounding sex/biology and gender/socialisation.