The reason why the debate is 'far more toxic' is because there are places which are outright attacking and removing rights of transgender individuals. Naturally this means people are going to be far more defensive because they don't want to be marked as less-than-human.
For example, the UK only introduced the Gender Recognition Act in 2004, and that law still stands. The UK doesn't have self-ID, but there are plans to update the GRA to include it. This is very much in line with what trans activists want.
The problem with self-ID is that it necessarily clashes with existing sex-based protections in the Equality Act, and whether you agree with women's rights or trans rights or both, these contradictions need to be discussed. The problem is that the discussion is enough to get you piled-on, blocked, fired etc.
[1] https://katymontgomerie.medium.com/addressing-concerns-over-...
Second, this article compares being trans with being gay. They're two different things entirely. The only "right" gay people wanted, above being left alone, was equality in law: the right to get married. Gay marriage ask nothing of us. But trans rights asks for something: to believe, and act as if we believe, the reality inside someone else's head, even if it conflicts with our own senses. Personally, I'm fine with that. I'm a married man, long gone from the dating pool. But let's say a woman is about to enter a private space to get undressed and she sees someone that she percieves to be male, but that person says "I am a woman and you must treat me in all respects as if I am a woman". Does that affect her? I would say yes, because she must override the powerful urge to protect her personal safety. Remember, according to this very article, the trans woman in the changing room doesn't need to have undergone surgery, taken hormones or obtained a Gender Recognition Cert. They may look absolutely male while undressed. So this woman must disbelieve her eyes and ignore the inner voice warning her of a possible risk.
On the one hand we tell women to be careful and avoid risks, choose a safe route home, carry pepper spray etc. But when they refuse to get completely naked in a room with someone who looks like "a male stranger"? Bigot!
Third, the article effectively says "look, it's not big deal anyway because you don't even need hormones/op/GRC to change the sex marker on you ID, change sports category, enter the spaces provided for the opposite sex or even have your crimes recorded as being committed by the opposite sex". So... Give us self-id because we effectively have it anyway? That doesn't work, particularly if a lot of people are opposed to it.
Certain trans rights clash with certain female sex-based protections, and many women are only finding out about it when they read stuff like this [1] in the newspapers. Of course they're pissed. This problem isn't going away. It needs to be worked out.
1. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hospital-dismissed-claim-...
Presenting this as a difference is a lie. There is no difference. Trans people only want to be left alone and to have equality in the law. (No, misgendering does not qualify as leaving them alone.)
You can solve all of these situations by treating the transgender woman the same way one would treat a cisgender woman in that situation. Nobody is obligated to be comfortable undressing in front of a trans woman, in the same way they are not obligated to be comfortable undressing in front of a cis woman. Nobody's going to call them a bigot just for not being comfortable getting naked in front of a stranger.
Transgender people are liable to get beaten for using the changing room or restroom, so many try to avoid public changing rooms anyways.
> So... Give us self-id because we effectively have it anyway? That doesn't work, particularly if a lot of people are opposed to it.
No, it's more like "Give us self-ID because it will help us, and all the reason anyone will give to oppose it are false." This is what the article is about. It will help them get married with the correct name on the certificate, along with some other boring administrative things, which, like gay marriage, asks absolutely nothing of you. It is entirely irrelevant to your example with changing rooms. The hospital example, which is mostly behind a paywall, seems more to do with a horribly sexist notion popular in Britain that a woman cannot commit rape than with the gender of any parties involved. (Note that I am referring to "rape", not "things that British law would consider rape", which is also subject to this notion.) In any case, it too has nothing to do with GRA reform.
What even is a "sex-based right" anyways? Most legal civil rights are equality rights, which apply to everyone equally.
Well, let's just call each other liars then