Why? Because it was said within the context of the call from "most trans activists acting for transgender people" for respect, tolerance and acceptance when trans activists themselves have shown clearly that they themselves have become intolerant, disrespectful and unaccepting. Hence, live and let live. That's the argument to be had. Not the argument about the perceived threat to the existence and the rights of transgender people.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but trans activists advocate for the right of a trans woman, for example, to be categorised as woman. Logically, that advocacy, automatically and effectively, eliminates transgenders. Therefore, the cause per se that trans activists are fighting for on behalf of trans people is what undermines the existence of trans people. Not other people's opposing views on trans activisim.
Don't trans activists want legal and societal recognition and acceptance of transgender as a gender in and of itself and to fight for the rights of that gender? Or, do trans activists just want to fight for a right of all transgender people to be legally and socially recognised as the sex and gender of their choosing thus, effectively eliminating transgenders? Everyone is either male or female. No more transgenders. Is that what trans activists want for transgenders?
Vulgar language and agressive and misplaced calls for a fellow poster to leave is reactionary and just a tiny half-step short of cancellation. All because, referencing poster Cloo, I challenged the credibility and sincerity of most trans activists' call for tolerance and acceptance when most trans activists themselves have clearly shown to have become intolerant of diverging views and opinions. I did not come here with an axe to grind. I just said live and let live.
Sorry, but it is never that "you don't have a biological basis to exist"; it is that "your biological sex preclude you from being of the opposite sex."