To be fair most of it was just pointing out the author's obvious bias on that topic, which anyone reading it could notice on their own, rather than some deep delve into the debate on Trans right vs Lesbian, Women and Human rights in general that's going on, but here we go...
Initial thing to point out, the whole Sex vs Gender thing still confuses me at times. In general speech the two are interchangeable, but in these kind of discussions (for the most part though there's a million different views depending on what side of the debate people seem to be on) Sex is based on your chromosomes while Gender is how you feel, act and present yourself.
Some people are unsure about the effects of things such as "self ID" (not needing a medical backing) when it comes to legal gender changing, the ignoring of the Equality Act 2010 which specifically says that in certain cases segregation by Sex is legal and acceptable when in practice charities making use of this part of the Act have been denied funding, Trans-women (born Male who have either undergone varying degrees of medical treatment or in some cases simply say they are Female) being placed in Women's Prisons, and the issue brought up in the piece of Trans-Women being eligible for Women only short lists and so on.
Most of these worries tend to focus on situations where someone who was born Male, and now identifies themselves as a Woman may either not have the lived experience to be making use of the position (Women's Only Short List put in place to get more Female views on things) or who's presence may have a physical or psychological effect on someone expecting a Female.
The author accusing those trying to bring discussion of these concerns of "Identity Politics" after his 6 paragraphs about why identity politics are bad is something I found rather amusing. This is because the very vocal and uncompromising sect of Trans "activists" who refuse to entertain such discussions about possible worries have their roots firmly planted in American social media identity politics about 10 years ago. From social media that spread into a physical presence at Pride events and it has finally made the jump over to the UK, just the other week you had a group of Lesbians at Edinburgh Pride daring to claim such things as "Lesbians don't like penis" being surrounded and shouted down by Trans supporting members of the gathering (one of the seemingly infinite friction points at the moment seems to be the view that it is transphobic for a lesbian to refuse a relationship with a trans-woman just because they still have their penis, and that a trans-woman who is sexually attracted to women is a lesbian).
At best I can say it is a social media tier arguments being brought out into the real world which is never a nice thing to see. At worst there have been examples of intimidation and violence against those trying to have discussions about what is going on.
Trying to just flatten things out a into a more general less potentially emotionally charged description. Some people have concerns about decisions that are being made or actions/advice being given, they feel these may have a direct impact on their lives and perhaps human rights in general and as such feel it is important to bring the topic up for discussion, those who disagree feel that all these worries are unfounded, wrong, and entirely based in prejudice so refuse to have any sort of debate.
In the initial article you can see that the author falls into that latter category, he tries to undermine the position of those he would otherwise be aligned with in the fight to get this "socialist Labour government" he wants, saying they are a small group of mostly lesbians, naval-gazing, time wasting, accusing them of identity politics, basing views on biological sex (that is a negative judging by the way he uses it), calls them "radical feminists" (stopping just short of his sides favoured term for anyone with concerns of "Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists" or TERF which they tend to use on social media a lot), and then as a final nail accuses them of undermining THE CAUSE by bringing up these difficult questions. How silly of these people who are worried maybe their human rights will be affected by what is going on to want to discuss it, they should just focus on the goal of a "socialist Labour government".
Probably a bit of a mess as I am by no means "in the trenches" of this debate or an expert on any of the views, laws, or sciences involved it is just something I have noticed in passing over the last decade online, and now out on the streets when Pride comes up. It just seemed so very strange that this author can write a history piece about riots over Gay Rights, ask for everyone to work together for this greater good he wants, and then at the end turning round and put the boot into a parts of both his "socialist Labour" community and his LGBT community who have from what I can tell valid concerns which should at least be discussed.
And as an aside from the Trans stuff I have learned that if some monumental shift happened to make me believe "socialist Labour" was a thing, and I was tempted to campaign for it, I am now fully aware that these people would not want me as I have another political goal of more importance, Scottish Independence, which would bring up difficult questions, make me a trouble maker and "distract from the cause."
www.socialist.net
