I think it doesn't help that scientists as a group have not really stood up for women as biological females. I think many Democrats consider themselves the "party of science" so if they think "science says" sex is a spectrum then they really will never examine who made that declaration or what it means. When they say they "believe in science" they are being more literal than they know: they don't know enough about the scientific details to accept "consensus" scientific claims on the basis of data, so instead they accept those claims on the basis that they believe scientists to be trustworthy. It's really a kind of faith for them, even though they think of themselves as rational, data-driven people. I generally trust scientists too, but I think what has happened here is that scientific claims have been mixed up with metaphysical claims. Yes, you can surgically alter human beings to remove or modify specific organs. Scientific research has helped show doctors how to remove a uterus from a woman safely, how to perform mastectomies safely, which hormones to give to induce breast growth. Those are science issues. Does removing a uterus turn a woman into a man? That is a metaphysics issue because it depends on what it means to be a woman or a man. Science can inform the issue, but does not decide the issue. People in favor of gender ideology have co-opted society's concept of woman and man (and, somehow, male and female) and redefined them for their own gain by conflating science and metaphysics. Surely the traditional concept (and the definition in law) was on the basis of reproductive adaptation (a girl/woman is adapted to reproduce as a female even if, for medical reasons, she never menstruates and is never able to carry a pregnancy to term). Now it's whatever trans right activists say it is, whether actual women agree or not.