That's one approach. Would you approve of my strategy if I told you I adopted it specifically to promote good-faith discussions and drag the narrative higher up the hierarchy of disagreement/pyramid of debate? If I'm in the company of liberal feminists and misgender or otherwise disrespect a transperson, their obvious response would be to label me as a bigot and TERF, which gives them an out to not listen to anything I say. So I avoid doing those things. This shifts the discussion away from whether or not transpeople deserve help and kindness, which is not the main point, and towards the most airtight argument we can make against TRA ideology, which is that the current system disallows "people with vaginas" from forming groups, having sexual boundaries, or even having words to talk about themselves unless they make concessions for "people with penises."

You can be respectful of your opponent's humanity without aiding them: here, I know they can't directly respond to my central point, so it's in my best interest to stay on the high road and expose their BS tactics for what they are. It's like saying, "Look, I don't need to dehumanize anyone or ignore information in order to win and I'm asking you to do the same." But they can't. Gaslighting and emotional manipulation are their only tools because facts are not on their side. 'Empathetic' doesn't mean 'doormat.' You dig?