I disagree. If a man attempts to masquerade as a woman, and someone is led to believe that he is a woman, that doesn't make him a woman. It just means his pretence managed to fool someone into believing this. Behind this facade, he is still a man.
Also I'm not convinced that a man being called "ma'am" or "miss" necessarily means that the speaker thinks he's a woman, especially these days. They might be saying it because that's how you're expected to politely address men in dresses these days. Or perhaps, they are being quietly sarcastic about the whole thing.
In summary, I don't accept this Butlerian redefinition of woman, as it's incoherent with reality and relies on guessing what's going on in people's minds. The existing definition of adult human female is fine and there's no need to change it.
So, you've used a recently resurrected account to engage on this specific issue, mostly by calling people disingenuous, transphobic bigots, in a series of long and rambling comments that meander from one poorly-argued point to another, while being condescending or otherwise abrasive.
It's not a very effective method of expressing disagreement, is it?
Sorry but that's not a very convincing argument. Seems to me that you are painting Hayton as transphobic simply for having opinions on trans issues that you don't agree with, but that are more aligned with those of feminists.
I think Hayton's article provides a view that carefully and thoughtfully balances the needs of both women and transwomen. It's a refreshing change from the type of activism that demands all sex-segregated spaces be torn down and that sex-based rights no longer matter.
I found Hayton's article a fascinating insight into someone who has gone through the whole process of transitioning, yet has much to critique about the modern activism on this topic, from the perspective of having lived experience and deep understanding.
Seems odd to write this off as "transphobic" given that Hayton is a transwoman. I think you just have a differing opinion, that's all.