(Eleanor Lynn)
the article is a very clumsy attempt at conflating feminist analysis of "gender identity" with being racist and bigoted. They're hoping it will scare people off questioning gender ideology without thinking critically about the issues. People are scared by that label and even just the accusation could be enough for many people to duck the debate.
(Hugo Brand)
I'm surprised that they don't argue that it's akin to attacking religion (read: a strong philosophical/religious belief or lack thereof) because it's far more accurate to what T ideology actually is and represents, right down to protecting an individual's behaviour and how they dress. However, those rights to manifest those beliefs are limited in certain situations to protect the safety, rights, freedoms, etc. of others.

In that regard, by qualifying their beliefs as religious/philosophical they'd have a much greater chance at having their beliefs protected while also providing women, gay people, and kids with protection from those beliefs.

And, fundamentally, that's the only logical, rational route the T argument can go--it has no sound basis in objectivity. It is a subjective, reality-denying belief that tries to force society, science, religion, and everything else to go along with it: 'man' brains in women's bodies; women who are truly 'gay men', men who are actually 'lesbian', and, the award-winning: "born in the wrong body" claptrap.

It's a religious/philosophical belief and needs to be treated as such. It deserves no greater respect or acknowledgement than that

(Lida Hall)
@Hugo Brand A major tenet of their religious belief is that they actually have some kind of "science" backing them up, teamed with a belief that their soul heavy belief system is not a religion when in fact, it very clearly is. I suspect that this cognitive dissonance serves to distract adherents from the cognitive dissonance the "born in the wrong body" narrative gives rise to - but that's just a theory.