It matters that bigoted advocacy legal groups are involved because it's necessary context for why two high school track athletes are somehow a pressing social issue worthy of endless panic mongering and woe about the end of life as we know it.
How many pages are going to spent on the the evils of trans people? The amount of pearl clutching seen on this forum, you'd think trans people were practically the modern day equivalent of the mongol horde on the horizon, rather than an extremely small portion of the population that are seeking minor accommodation. Either it's this story of two high school track athletes in the suburbs, or the the evil of a mediocre MMA fighter, or the horror of a trans woman using a sauna at a pool. HORROR, SHOCK, DANGER, DOOM. WOE BEFALL ALL MANKIND.
The inclusion of the ADF in this story is relevant when it comes to understanding the scale of reactionary backlash to civil right protections for trans people. The ADF goes around the country collecting up horror stories of the evils of trans people, mostly trans women, and tries to drum up panic and fear to achieve their bigoted ends. They whip up the fervor against trans people and blow these issues way of proportion, desperately trying to turn some minor local scandal into a wedge issue to advocate their Christian-supremacist world view on the national level.
Your fallacy is: Appeal to consequences.
I would humbly suggest that so-called skeptics try not to be such willing suckers to these obvious tactics.
I would not-so-humbly suggest that so-called skeptics are well familiar and experienced with these obvious tactics such as the appeal to consequences above.
Perhaps a skeptics forum is not the appropriate place to discuss social issues and who is worthy of civil rights protections. You can't "facts and logic" your way around such problems, and what the divide comes down to here is often one of irreconcilable moral judgement which are not susceptible to a skeptical approach.
You might want to look up the is-ought problem. Several of the claims made were claims of "is" and not of "ought" - such as "transwomen are women." You can't make claims of fact and then say that your claims are "not susceptible" to a "facts and logic" skeptical approach. If you make such claims then you're expected to support them, and failing to do so means the claims get rejected. If you want the claim to be accepted then you'll need to support it, and if you can't do so yourself then find someone who can. The TWAW claim is of a trivial form, again here's what you need to do:
1. Define the set of women.
2. Define the set of transwomen.
3. Show that the set of transwomen is a subset of the set of women.
You might want to keep in mind that the opposing side, the "transwomen are not women" side, has long since met that standard:
1. Define the set of women: a woman is an adult human female, a human is female if SRY/androgen.
2. Define the set of transwomen: a transwoman is a human male who identifies as a woman.
3. Show that the set of transwomen is not a subset of the set of women: Transwomen do not fulfill the SRY/androgen condition for being female, therefor transwomen are not female, therefor transwomen are not women.
Or you can just throw your hands in the air and declare those that don't agree with you as ideologues bordering on religious extremists. You know, the skeptical thing, declaratory ad-hom.
What a display... It's not an ad-hom to (accurately) compare your argumentation to that of a religious extremist. An ad-hom is rejecting an argument based on who's making it. That's what you do, just declaring people transphobes or bigots and on that basis simply rejecting the arguments made out of hand. If you don't want your argumentation compared to that of a religious extremist then make a better argumentation.
A: "Deity exists."
B: "Prove it."
A: "But I really deeply feel it in my heart that deity exists."
B: "Just because you feel that deity exists doesn't mean that deity actually exists."
A: "But if deity doesn't exist then the atheists win and they're evil."
B: "Appealing to consequences doesn't mean deity actually exists."
A: "But my claims are beyond 'facts and logic' and the 'skeptical method' - it is a moral judgement, the atheists are morally evil."
B: "Even if it were the moral stance that deity exists that doesn't mean deity actually exists."
A: "But everyone I know agrees that deity exists. Also, everyone who doesn't agree that deity exists gets 'cancelled' from our in-group. Furthermore the arguments by 'cancelled' people are thenceforth only accessed through second-hand commentary from in-group people and not directly from the 'cancelled' person herself."
B: "Ever heard of self-selection bias? Also, are you in a cult or something? Lastly, that's an argumentum ad populum."
...and so on and so forth ad nauseam.
What gets you taken seriously when you're taken to task to support a claim you made: 1) supporting said claim successfully against questioning, 2) retracting said claim. What gets you taken progressively less seriously when you're taken to task to support a claim you made: 1) piling fallacy upon fallacy for it, 2) taking a page straight out of the crackpot/religious extremist playbook.
Since I have already shown that a fair and level plaing field is an ancient relic, there is nothing left to say.
