I'm not sure why something becomes "unacceptable to society" just because it "poses a threat to feminist aims." What's the first principles reason why it should be unacceptable?
My main point is, if it were acceptable, my s.o. would have a blog post about it that I could just link you to.
Do you think there's a difference between thinking you have to be a woman because you want (for example) to be a nurse, and thinking you have to be a woman because you want to be a woman?
>Why should the impact on feminist goals be relevant to the conversation?
Because feminists are members of the society, and they hold those views for a reason. I think you already know why feminists think that feminism is good for society.
Of course, it is a valid opinion to hold that women and men are fundamentally different. The problems arise when this limits people's freedom. As a technologist I look forward to this problem disappearing. When switching genders is like switching an outfit, then all these concerns will become irrelevant :)
You said upthread that transgender thought should be socially unacceptable, so why do you hold this view?
Not to deny your lived experience or anything but (purely for the sake of providing a reference for discussion and not taking a position either way) TERF content is widely available on the Interwebs.
I think my s.o.'s viewpoint is a little more nuanced than "trans women aren't real women"
I didn't actually know that, interesting.
Maybe my google-fu is lacking, but it seems to be hard to find
It's entirely possible that your fu is fine and this material is pushed down the index as a matter of policy.
Now I need to really think about this...