The argument is that arguing about “sex is socially constructed” vs “no, it’s not, and gender is innate too” vs. “gender is constructed but flows from sex” vs other stuff, when you have people targeted for conversion therapy, is a bad use of attention.

If the argument is, “Let’s focus on things that make a real difference to trans people’s lives,” you can’t rebut it by saying, “Look, here’s a thing that makes a real difference to trans people’s lives”. The premise is that you focus on those!

Furthermore, you have again misrepresented the argument about divisiveness. The question is whether extra divisiveness is helpful, or whether you want the minimum necessary while obtaining adequate rights. You have confused being unnecessarily belligerent with people getting upset by the legitimate request for basic rights.

After you discard all your straw-man arguments, I’m not sure whether you actually disagree. Could you try to engage with the actual argument, not the strawman version of it?

That is: just focus on the practical issues that trans people face. If you disagree, you could either (1) argue that philosophical stands on gender and linguistics are in fact a critically important practical issue, or (2) it’s better strategy to battle everything out even the not-directly-pragmatically-useful stuff because (2a) battles are how you change things or (2b) a decisive victory is less work in the long run. Or something like that.

The arguments you have been giving just make it look like you can’t distinguish between attempting a pragmatic approach, and denialism/hatred.