The problem seems to be that there are two divergent points of view on this topic. All the reasons for feeling as we do have been given over and over by both sides. It is unlikely that these positions will alter, unless there is a change in the MO of TRAs (by which I mean the activists who disrupt feminist meetings, threaten and abuse public figures on social media and try to get those who disagree with them sacked from their jobs) and unless it becomes clear that legislators are not in the thrall of Stonewall.
That does not mean that anyone posting to say what they think is having a personal dig at anyone else. A personal dig is suggesting that other people are not 'kind' or that they are homophobic, discriminatory or bullying. Saying that their views are wrong is not personal.
There are written and unwritten rules of discussion. It is not acceptable to twist people's words to suggest that they have said, or that they think, something that they (obviously to others) neither said nor meant.
Holding past off-board experiences over people's heads to suggest that disagreement is more upsetting for some than for others is not acceptable.
Continually positioning yourself on the side of the angels with comments such as 'All I want is for people to live in peace', directly suggesting that anyone who disagrees must want them to live in perpetual torment is not acceptable.
False equivalences such as 'if you don't believe that TWAW you must also be racist and homophobic' is unacceptable.
Accusing people of 'bullying' because more of them disagree with you than agree is unacceptable, as are claims that people have been 'hounded' off the boards because they hold minority views. Similarly, the fact that more people disagree with a view than agree with it does not mean that the holders are being 'silenced', and repeated instances of 'I am so upset by this that I am not posting any more on this thread' (aka a 'flounce') is not acceptable either. Post, don't post, but don't blame others if your arguments don't hold water.
At a guess, I would say than more than 50% of the unpleasantness on 'trans' threads is not about the topic at all, but happens when unacceptable behaviour as described above comes into play, and people react. It is difficult not to on a public discussion board when the alternative is to let untrue statements stay, unchallenged, on the record. There is no 'ignore' button on GN, so nobody can opt out of seeing posts that they know are likely to rub them up the wrong way.
It has been said repeatedly that a refusal to accept that TWAW does not equate to a refusal to accept them as people, or to want them to live unmolested and happy lives, yet time and again it is suggested that this is the case. It is changes to the law that people object to, as well as changes to the language and to the custom and practice of having separate spaces for women when we are vulnerable because of being undressed, ill, in distress or unable to fight back (as in FN's examples above). Oh, and the obvious cheating in sport and now beauty contests.
This thread started as a discussion about women being asked to leave the Scottish parliament because of wearing colours that show support for female solidarity, but within a few posts the question 'is this a trans thread' was asked, and things went immediately downhill. I dare say that was inevitable though, as whereas IMO it was never a 'trans' thread, it is about the way women who oppose the GRA are repeatedly silenced, and increasingly this is overtly supported at institutional levels, and IMO it is understandable that women will feel strongly about this.
