(Preface: I agree with most of the article, and the tone. But I am a stickler for details, especially in cases where it seems likely to be important.)

Although I will readily admit that gender critics very often get biology (and science) woefully wrong, and that transgender people have no choice but to get some aspects of biology right because they're living it, your statement (quoted above) does not reflect how the trans community presents itself, at least on social media.

Pretty much every pro-trans piece from pretty much everyone has some substantial flaw in how it represents the biology. (Pretty much every anti-trans piece does also. I have a dim sense that the median anti-trans piece is even worse, but as I am keenly aware that what I see is heavily sculpted by algorithms trying to maximize my engagement, I don't trust this determination very much.)

There's no great shame in this; not everyone is a biologist, and biology is complicated, and it's very comforting to believe (without carefully checking) those things that seem to be better for you or some group you identify with.

But I think it's important to not lionize/demonize different perspectives too strongly. People make mistakes. People engage in motivated reasoning. People even lie on purpose to advance their own ends. On both sides.

The three most common biology/science-denying positions commonly taken are, from my experience,

(1) Sex is a spectrum. It's really, really not. It's one of the most effectively binarized decisions in biology. It's biology, so stuff occasionally goes wrong, meaning that it's not a pure bimodal distribution but rather a bimodal distribution with a scattering of outliers in various places (not necessarily along the axis between the two clusters of "male" and "female"). But basically, sex is not a spectrum. (The most egregious example of getting the science wrong here was when someone told me that "unlike race, sex is a spectrum". It is, biologically, literally the exact opposite.) Sex is bimodal, plus "occasionally it's complicated".

(2) There are no fairness concerns with trans women participating with cis women in sport. Except that's not what research indicates, especially with some of the rules about duration and strength of HRT. It's relatively rare to find a view that actually comports with the research (both in terms of what's known to be fine and what's known to be not fine, but especially what hasn't been looked at a carefully enough to know--there is an overwhelming tendency to assume that it is fine in the "haven't looked" cases).

(3) Trans people, as a group, have immensely greater risk to their lives than do members of any other identifiable group. The numbers just don't bear this out. The numbers are bad, but they're not incredible outlier bad, just ordinary-level bad. (If you consider violence in general, not just lethal violence, then it starts getting more towards outlier territory.) Whether it's government statistics or targeted research, it's very clear that being a black man in a low-income urban area is WAY more likely to be fatal.

I empathize with how hard it is to reach people who are just blatantly wrong and hostile in their wrongness (e.g. who won't even acknowledge that gender dysphoria is a thing). There's a lot of belligerent ignorance out there. There's a virulent and vicious strain of anti-trans rhetoric that you movingly argue against, and which should be argued against and otherwise opposed.

However, if you actually like the idea of finding more common ground for dialog with people who have concerns but aren't quite so polarized, it's better, I think, to take a frank look at both sides. You can still correctly paint the irrational and hateful as such without needing to pretend trans people are overwhelmingly intellectual saints. Otherwise, they will disappoint.

People can and should be afforded dignity even if they aren't perfect. That's part of what makes a tolerant and accepting society a pleasant and preferable one in which to live.