> Not at all. I think you've just misunderstood what gender fluidity is.
This is certainly possible! But if someone is genderfluid today, and genderfluid tomorrow, they are genderfluid immutably, are they not?
I could be wrong, but from the genderqueer people I know, identifying as male one day and female the next isn't normally how they describe it, instead they wish to present as (note: this is not the same as "be". Gender expression vs. identity) one or the other, or even wish to present as more masculine or feminine. It's not "I am a man" or "I am a woman", but "I am neither but I'm left with three choices: present as (more-)man, (more-)woman, or put in a lot of effort to present as explicitly neither".
Like I said though, I could be wrong. I'd love to hear about some people who view their gender identity the way you describe (or documentation thereof), it sounds interesting and would certainly be something for me to think about.
> Are you willing to admit your previous statements can marginalize people and strip them of their identity?
Not specifically, but for the purposes of discussion, absolutely, I can certainly agree that things I've said in the past have done the same.
> Are you willing to accept that your previous statements are, in fact, hate speech according to the social morays of our time?
No. Innocent mistakes do not a hate speech make. This indeed relies on context. Stating, apropos of nothing "trans-women are not female" is probably hate speech since the context doesn't really support it being anything else. But the same sentence, in the context of an example, stops being hate speech. I generally believe people are intelligent enough to use context clues to guide the decision making process. You're correct that this leaves us without a completely objective way of making decisions about hate speech, but that's no worse than any other system. We have no objective way of making really any decision when humans are involved in the loop. The idea that we can define perfect rules that will be able to objectively discern someone's motives and whether or not something is "good" or not is a programmers fantasy. But that doesn't stop us from having a legal system, for example, even if that system is full of context clues, human judgement, imperfection, inaccuracy, and much, much higher stakes than keeping online fora polite.