As someone who tries to be a trans ally- I can't claim to speak for trans or non-binary people themselves- my observation is that there would be that it's likely-not certain, but likely- that trans or non-binary people might sound less "dismissive" if they weren't having to respond to people who are insisting that nothing they are saying can possibly be valid, that nothing short of excluding trans women from women's spaces while insisting that trans women "aren't women" and are trying to "erase women"-something trans women have never at any point tried to do to cis-women, from anything I've seen.

Trans women are having to respond to a relentless, often insulting demand that trans women and trans allies essentially concede the validity of every exclusionist talking point and argument before being allowed to...what...essentially sign something like an unconditional surrender treaty, essentially agree to the canard that they are the enemies of cis-women & should simply have agreed not to exist in women's spaces at all?

Sensitivity is a valid point- but it needs to be mutual, and it needs to be grounded in mutual respect and acknowledgment of good faith- things that have been completely withheld from trans women by the exclusionists and the semi-exclusionists.

There is a limit to how much sensitivity can be expected from anybody, in any discussion in which that anybody is clearly a non-oppressor, is essentially told "admit you're wrong and admit you're a total fraud, and admit you're the ENEMY!" before anything else in the discussion can go forth.

Would it be asking too much to admit that trans women are not responsible for anything cis-male sexual assailants might do, and have nothing in common with said assailants?