So if somebody's "pushing back" on that, I think it's pretty fair to call them transphobic.
Prospective Supreme court justices have to delegate the definition of "woman" to a biologist.
And you'll be called transphobic at the slightest infraction of the ever growing set of rules.
The whole rainbow movement exists to gain positions, money and power and to have a free pass to yell at dissenters.
And then the online and it's allied that push for all sort of weirdness and political visibility and gains.
Many don't have much issues at least those to air in public about first one. The later one seems to aim in places also ruin things that they enjoy. Just for signalling and power.
But there is more to it. There are issues about women's sports, public education, the ethics of irreversible medical procedures on minors without an objective diagnosis, etc.
You explicitly avoided the controversy, and it's not really fair to do that.
Of course, "live our lives" includes trans kids being able to live their lives too, being safe at their school, etc. And trans people should be able to play sport if they like, it's a healthy thing to do.
As far as social sport goes, I personally prefer mixed sport, but I think that the excitement over trans people playing in women's leagues is unnecessary. At the professional level, I can understand a need for a bit more precision, but my understanding is that the international sporting bodies have regulations and they (the sporting bodies) don't seem to think there's a big issue.
As far as "irreversible medical procedures on minors" goes... (and this is the one that spurred me on to reply) ...it's just not a thing.
And again, I'm in Australia, but I'm pretty sure this applies globally. To my knowledge, we simply do not perform reassignment surgery on children.
The WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) guidelines (available here: https://www.wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/SOC%20v7/SOC%20V7_... ) clearly state that one of the criteria for surgery is being "the legal age of majority to give consent for medical procedures in a given country"
Even if not done much today, it's certainly an issue. For instance, see this doc from the US HHS (a federal department):
https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/gender-affir...
"May include medical, surgical... For children and adolescents...crucial to overall health".
Logically, it kind of has to be an issue, right? Current medicine isn't even close to being able to change the sex of an 18 year old. So some people will want to start a lot earlier in a lot more cases. And people will push the boundaries with hormones, which in kids absolutely will cause irreversible changes.
So I stand by my claim that you are unfairly dismissing the controversial aspects of the argument.