Sure, but any scepticism worthy of the name requires that we deal with the substance of the argument and the claims made (if any).
But not in this thread 
I used that language specific to this thread.
Huey Freeman was a fringe crank on a message board. Stonewall has hundreds of organisations signed up to their diversity scheme, including government departments. Including until March of this year the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Huey Freeman did not get people fired from their jobs or socially ostracised.
In any case, the biggest danger in my view is not alienating people as such, but that if you refuse to even consider their objections, let alone compromise at all, people who would otherwise have been your allies and supported your goals will instead oppose them. That is what has happened in the UK.
Honestly, I think it could. Not a single accusation, of course; but when someone is attacked or ostracised for their views, they are likely to seek out others who agree with them. And once within that echo-chamber, they tend to adopt more extreme views over time. I have seen it happen.
Not to mention that if people are continually attacked by some group, they are likely to have no very kindly feelings towards them (this goes both ways, of course).
Objections can be considered and rejected. When the same objections are offered over and over, they might be considered less each subsequent time.
Asking oppressed folks to compromise with their oppressors is some Letter-from-a-Birmingham-Jail White moderate bullshit.
There’s another aspect particular to this debate, which is that the groups pushing to replace sex with gender identity in law are also adamant on making it impossible to collect any data on the subject. This is not reassuring.
Rejecting objections out of hand with no arguments does not constitute considering them.
Nobody is raising new objections. The ones that you think are rejected “out of hand” are objections that have been considered for years.
No, that’s a different debate, and not one that I think I can respond to, given the thread rules.
The objections your talking about have been considered at length, though. We’re specifically not allowed to consider them in this thread, because we’re trying to avoid another endless thread where we consider your objections over and over and over.
Unless the “others who agree with them” and “that echo-chamber” refers to transphobes, this makes no logical sense. So you’re not describing a tolerant person being transformed into a transphobe by harsh criticism, you’re describing someone who always held transphobic views shedding the veneer of reasonableness. Which I would see as a positive development. It’s always better to know who people really are.
As I said before, and it’s something that applies to all genuinely tolerant people debating ideas in good faith:
Do you understand that views aren’t binary? You cannot neatly divide the world into bigots and pure, perfect, good people. Even a spectrum doesn’t begin to describe the complexity; on a single topic two people can agree in some areas and disagree, even vehemently in others.
I am not claiming anyone changes their views because their feelings were hurt, but that your opinions are influenced by your in-group, and since there is a whole range of views coexisting, people can gradually adopt more extreme ones, and end up holding opinions they didn’t before (yes, people really are capable of changing their minds!) You never heard of people being radicalised? It’s the same principle.
Well, once again thank you for your concern that calling out transphobia will somehow antagonize hordes of tolerant and compassionate people.
I can see the point that’s being made by her. One area of trans rights that I’ve become more conservative about is in areas where the label ‘woman’ seems more about biological sex rather than gender, such as locker rooms, scholarships, and sports. Part of that is because any discussion about these areas gets labeled as transphobic and shut down. But I’ve become more liberal with the idea of self-identified gender. If someone says they are gender X, then they are gender X. There’s no purity test, gender conformity, etc. that’s needed. They are whatever they say they are. It’s kind of like religion, where if someone says they follow religion X, then they are a follower of religion X, end of story, no further verification is needed. But since I see biological sex as something which can have significant differences, I’m not so willing to just say someone who self identifies as gender X gets full access to everything labeled as gender X. I’m not a fan of the states which are banning transgender athletes from competing in specific gender sports, but I can see where they are coming from. I think part of that kind of legislation stems from the inability to discuss the grey area of partial acceptance in these areas. Either it’s 100% acceptance of self-identification or it’s transphobia.
In the UK, there’s a major one - gay marriage. Back in 2004, we compromised on civil partnerships with nearly all of the same rights as marriage. They are legally-recognised spousal relationships with a legal ceremony presided over by an officiant, nothing to do with common law spouses.
Over the next few years, the law gradually changed, voted through by elected members of parliament, so that the only real difference was the name. It made the gay marriage vote in 2013 a foregone conclusion. The only difference now is that gay marriage isn’t allowed in the church of England, and other faiths can choose whether or not to conduct them.
That’s also a compromise, and one I suspect many in the US wouldn’t accept, but very few people in the UK - particularly gay people care about it.
I hope that’s allowed to discuss on this thread. There don’t seem to be many lines of discussion related to the OP that fall within the permitted boundaries.
This part of your post is on-topic. While the rest queues that up, it’s an awful lot of queuing-up… Please try to spend at least a significant fraction of your post engaging with the topic. It’s very hard to keep any trans-related thread from devolving into people with different views yelling at each other, but I’m hoping we can at least discuss some adjacent issues raised by the OP.
UK history is full of compromises; that’s why we never had a revolution, and still have a monarch. In the US slavery was only abolished after a bloody war, in the UK they got parliament to vote for it by bribing the slave owners with compensation for their lost ‘property’.
But now, rather than compromise they want to do this the American way, as described in another thread:
It’s not just this one issue, but adopting the same self-righteous, dismissive, uncompromising attitude as Stonewall displayed has left Labour all but unelectable.
It seems to me that the default position established as consensus by reasonable and well-informed people is:
Trans people should be treated, for almost all purposes, just like every other member of the gender with which they identify.
Any position which fundamentally disagrees with that can, IMO, fairly be described as bigoted.
The boundaries of reasonable debate are set by the “almost”. For example, if you feel that transwomen shouldn’t be able to compete as women in competitive sports, I don’t think that’s an inherently bigoted position. It’s something on which reasonable people may disagree. But if you want me to believe you’re debating in good faith, you should frame it as “this may be one of the rare and unusual situations in which the default position produces undesirable results”, not as “this demonstrates that the default position is fundamentally flawed”.
Thank you @Thing.Fish, I think that was possibly the most civil and reasonable way an edge situation could be identified and described. A heartfelt thumbs up 
to you!
Very well said. I agree completely.
I withdrew from this thread as I seemed to be failing to get my points across and I was ending up as a distraction but your phrasing is in absolute accordance with my own thoughts so I just wanted to dip back in and give credit where credit is due.