So much to address... let's go point by point.
At the same time the culture alienates white cis men
if these spaces are inevitably dominated by people who don't actually have gender dysphoria [...] then you've destroyed the [...] community
You seem to be at the same time arguing that "these spaces" (whatever that means) are too exclusive and not exclusive enough. So which is it?
Generally, I think right now there is a miniscule amount of trans people who do not experience dysphoria, so all of this pearl-clutching seems way overblown to me. But let's say there is a problem where you're in a space and the number of people with gender dysphoria is small. So what's stopping you from forming a gender dysphoria support group, which is explicitly for people with gender dysphoria? There, problem solved.
Yet you also give anyone of these men the opportunity to get all this attention and social status, and you remove all the barriers that made this costly. The argument against worries that men will claim to be trans to do weird shit has always been that no one would go through the process just for that, and that's true, but it stops being true if you remove all barriers for entry.
So, I'm confused about a number of things here. The first sentence: Are you still talking about the like of Jordan Petersen (which was what the last sentence was about), or are you talking about men who claim to be trans (which seems to me like it makes more sense contextually, but less sense grammatically)?
Then we get to the next bit: What exactly are you worried about here? We're talking about trans communities still, right? Is the worry that men will enter trans spaces to sexually assault trans people? Usually this concern is more framed around men predating on cis women, but that doesn't make sense in this context.
Ultimately, if someone is doing a sexual assault, that is illegal, regardless of whether they are a cis men, someone who claim to be trans for some nefarious purpose, or an actual trans person. In either of these cases, it is fine and probably good (and from my experience also what tends to happen) if the community shuns them.
And if these spaces are inevitably dominated by people who don't actually have gender dysphoria (I'm saying if but afaik this has already more than happened)
And this is definitely the point where I go: "And where is the evidence for that?"
Do you not see how softening the trans label and removing all barriers of entry makes the entire thing that much less credible?
No. Some women get operations to reduce their cup size because it is medically indicated; they have chronic back pain otherwise. Other women do it for cosmetic reasons, or because they don't like how society treats them if the have big breasts. Does anyone argue that the latter makes the former less credible?
I continue to think that fighting the political extremes on your side is one of the most important things to do to win elections
Come on, you cannot expect to win any ground with that argument with me. I am the political extreme. The problem is, and continues to be, that the right does not fight their political extreme, and they are decently successful with that strategy. If the left was to fight their political extreme, the result would just be that political discourse shifhts further and further right as the right opens the Overton window to that side and the left continues to shut it down on the other side. And look at the political landscape - this is exactly what is happening.
And it also just muddies the waters. You're lumping two completely different things under the same label; this is just bad instrumental rationality and bound to lead to problems like people following the wrong advice.
You claim this, but I don't think I do. My conception of a trans person is just "a person whose gender assigned at birth does not match the gender they perceive themselves to be". Whether this comes with dysphoria is not integral.
Here's a spicy analogy (and please don't think that I want to make the case that what you're doing is equally bad): When colonialists went to Africa/America and encountered indigenous peoples, they could by the same token claim "you're lumping two completely different things under the same label" if you referred to both white and indigenous people as "humans".
But faust literally likened it to someone getting a haircut. If the positive stakes are that low, then yeah, it seems to me that allowing everyone into the fold is a huge net negative.
This just seems like bad faith to me. My haircut comparison obviously wasn't meant to say that transitioning is on the same level in terms of stakes, I just wanted to know why you think there is a categorical difference between the two. To be fair, Awaclus made this point better. Unfortunately you did not respond.
And also if we are going to say that everyone can be trans, why don't we do the same for race?
I am not saying that "everyone can be trans". Please don't strawman my position.