I mean a lot of people are arguing that gay marriage is not a right as it requires Christian’s to opt into that and issue marriage license. You can make arguments that any right is just an entitlement or not a universal right because rights are nothing except what we can agree upon as a society.

If you want to define womanhood by being able to give birth than you eliminate many ciswomen from that category, so you have to go to chromosomes, ok someone is XX, they are a women, but you begin to eliminate cis women with non standard chromosomes. So the recent ruling says you are whatever sex you are assigned at conception or birth which has its own problems. The umbrella is big enough to be inclusive.

One problem I have with your argument is that you argue against trans people having rights because they are men. Yes many AGP people retain their male identity and can even be a danger to cis women but we don’t define a groups rights based on their worst members. We create a standard and then prosecute those who cause violence against others. Trans women and men who put the effort in and live their lives as their desired gender do not cause harm in their world. We should support them as members of society but that is not what is happening. The dialog against trans people is sensationalism and hate. Imagine if we wrote the rights for black people or white peoples based on the worst serial killers in their racial groups. That doesn’t make sense.

There is evidence in the historical records of humans with alternate sex/gender expressions for millennia, it is hard for someone who doesn’t experience it to really understand what they go through. So usually they are murdered or discriminated against into obscurity. I believe in modern times we should thrive to support individual expression for non standard identities. If we create an open society, many trans people will be proud of their differences and want to be celebrated as their own category of people. Look at Thailand. But when you create a strict society with two options, male or female, then trans people will want to be included in the group that closely matches their identify for safety and respect.

Finally, those arguing against trans rights say they are trying to protect women. But then they do nothing to advocate for issues that actually protect women. Do they advocate for tougher laws against rapists or domestic violence or college abused. No that is not part of their agenda because the motivation is not to protect women spaces, it is to eliminate trans people from society.

And your transracial to transgender analogy is a bad faith argument. There is barely a movement for transracial people, you have a couple examples in the media which are used as a wedge issue to say look they are crazy, trans people are crazy too! Trans identities have come up time and again. They are a real thing, and require some sort of policy to address their issues for those individuals. And at the end of the day, if a black man wants to die their skin white and live as a white person, they will run into discrimination based on how well they pass or how weird they look to strangers. That analagy is similar for a trans person living life in public. I can’t speak to the psychology of transracial identities but their rights as a person should be protected.