So, you keep talking about your lived experience, but what about your un-lived or whatever the antonym of lived experience may be? I mean, can there be personal experiences that are not lived? Does the phrase redundancy give the experiences more validity? Jokes aside, you're falling on a kind of exceptionalism. According to you, no one but trans identified people are qualified to talk about the "trans experiences"; nevertheless, you give yourself permission for matters that should be foreign to you, like the "lived experiences" of women. For how could you know you are a woman, otherwise? How could you know who, including yourself, is a woman when you are unable to define the word? You have no idea how it is to inhabitant a female body and all the biological and social experiences that arises from this fact.

Words have meanings that people have agreed upon in order to communicate with each other. Thus, I don't have a personal definition of "woman", rather I go by the one that is (still) in the dictionaries (the one that has been used by everyone before transactivists started lobbying to change it), which is based on the reality of sex. Because, here is the thing, reality doesn't change just because you give something a completely unrelated name. A donkey doesn't become an unicorn just because you say it's really an unicorn. I doesn't become one either even if you also fix a horn on its head.

Anyway, I didn't say you lack empathy for women because of our disagreements. I said it because you showed no concern for the very real impacts trasactivism is having on women. Instead, you worry that "modern transgender people" ruin it for you. What is more, you're worried for consequences that have yet to materialize for you. If it is true that you "pass" as a woman completely, I mean, you "pass" 100% and no one ever could tell you are actually "transsexual" by looking at you, then why do you mind if Republicans want to ban all males from the women's restrooms at all?

Something like requiring SRS surgery, 10 years on hormones, no transfers from male prisons, and no history of certain crimes makes sense to me as criteria for trans women in female prisons for instance.

None of these things would make them female, though. Furthermore, that was already tried. Old school transactivists in different countries lobbied to be legally recognized as the opposite sex and have access to sex-segregated spaces that weren't intended for them. It was a trap. Soon enough, that was not good anymore because not all trans identified people could afford "medical transition", for some it could not be accessed legally in their countries, some though it was cruel to be subjected to procedures that have all kinds of harsh side effects in order to be recognized as their "true selves", to say nothing of the "forced sterilization".

No. Self-ID doesn't happens overnight, but it's a gradual process that starts by ignoring biology. It never ends with just a few special cases.

I think that we need to be judged by our characters and not by having the original sin of being born male.

I agree with judging people by their characters. I don't think being born male is a sin. As there is, however, many males who do shitty things, women have plenty of reasons to be wary of them, especially because we cannot tell who are the bad ones. Any decent male would understand this and not make it personal.