Lots of stuff in there, two immediate thoughts:
1) “We have received nothing by way of substantive critique which deals directly with those objections”
absolutely, even down to the most basics – and a question I have never seen the TRAs address: why is it so important to segregate by “gender” (or “identity”) rather than sex ? Particularly where the physical sexed body is a fundamental part of the situation.
and (slight tangent but not entirely)
2) “whiteness” another concept that is so overused, and used so much out of context that it has mostly lost any useful meaning, and in comparison to sex it doesn’t map that well.
Having whatever colour of skin, in and of itself, is not oppressive. Race supremacy is an oppressive ideology, but there is no mechanism for exploitation on colour unless artificially created.
This is quite unlike physical sex where physically stronger and more brutal male persons impregnate the female ones: a hard mechanistic reality regardless of construct.
But “whiteness” has gone the same way as “privilege”, used by the libfemqueers and others who have a vested interest in scoring points without addressing real power, violence, deprivation etc.
It is always much more useful – when analysing rights and social relations – to look at actual resources and actual power. (In the news again example: Rotherham, Rochdale et al – who has the power there ? The oppression olympics, right-on, point scoring approach does not work in this situation at all)