You are arguing that we should accept a man who’s feeling “womany” as a real woman, and that he should legally be treated as a woman.
Personally I think that’s absurd. I think we should let everyone be who they are, but I disagree about having legalities determined by what someone claims to feel.
Feelings are feelings, and very much soft and fluid. The law should be hard.
Clearly though, you think that the base argument makes sense, so my question is: do you accept it universally? The full way out?
Should a person who feels like or identifies as an animal (a furry), be considered a “real” animal? Should he legally be governed by the laws which governs real animals?
If not, why so? How is that different?
Or how about the famous attack chopper? Again it’s the exact same argument: someone claims to feel something, and demands you to respect the consequences of it, no matter how ridiculous.
Being opposed to such is a rationalist view, and has nothing to do with so “hate” no matter how much someone want to frame it as such.