I don’t understand the question. Why exclude romantic partners and doctors? Because if the statement was “Trans people should be treated as the gender they identify with at all times, no questions asked, including by their doctors and by prospective romantic partners”, I think we could ALL agree that this is a VERY extremist position, right?
Right?
So, since presumably we all agree that “Trans people should be treated as the gender they identify with at all times, no questions asked, including by their doctors and by prospective romantic partners” is an extremist position, there’s not a lot of interesting discussion to have there.
If you disagree - if you think that a doctor shouldn’t take sex assigned at birth into account when providing treatment, or that it is transphobic to only choose sexual partners whose sex assigned at birth matches your preference - then say so, and we can discuss those ideas. But if we all agree that those are extreme positions that few if any trans people and activists hold, we can just move on.
I answered this question twice now. The qualified way I present, “people should be treated accordingly in every area of PUBLIC life without regard for aspects of biological sex, and various other things”, IS an extremist position if it includes sports*, and IS NOT an extremist position if it excludes sports.
*I think restricted access for some trans women, for example girls who transitioned before undergoing male puberty, is not an extremist position, although it is a controversial one, even among Democrats. It’s a position I support, mind you.