I see no reason why the term "women" should be diminished in its meaning to encompass "woman and any other people who declare themselves to be women."
Therefore, I do not agree that "any other people who declare themselves to be women" are entitled to usurp womens spaces in sport or in prisons.
I especially do not agree that women (excluding "any other people who declare themselves to be women") should be obliged to accept "any other people who declare themselves to be women" when they have no choice in the matter, and especially when they have no possibility of escape.
If you refuse to accept that transgender women are women, that's your right to an intolerant attitude. It doesn't mean that everyone else has to conform to your view.
What do you think a "woman" is?
There you go again, trying to start a discussion by inviting someone else to start the discussion.
If you want to start a discussion, the usual procedure is to state your idea, theory, definition, etc, and invite comments or arguments.
If I wanted to start a discussion about, say, holidays, it would be nonsensical if I created a thread, and simply said, "Holidays, Discuss".
That is basically what you are doing, wanting to start a discussion by inviting someone else to start the discussion.
Why do you think that a person who is not a woman should be permitted to compete against women in womens sports?
Transgender women are women. If you are intolerant to that idea, then it's your intolerance that is the problem.
You are not "respecting women" by redefining what a woman is to include people who are not women.
I'm not redefining anything.
We've (I think) already acknowledged that genital ambiguity exists. That includes a whole spectrum of ambiguities, from lack of testes in an otherwise male, and existence of testes in an otherwise women, to all sorts of jumbled up biology. Numerous medical scientific articles and eminent opinions have been presented to support that.
These types of anatomy ambiguities, and other issues can give rise to gender dysphoria, which you have refused to acknowledge does exist. But it does.
Your apparent attitude would be to insist that those with gender dysphoria live out their lives in the gender assigned label that conforms to their sex assigned label at birth.
Does your attitude extend to other types of congenital ambiguities and anomalies?
Do you insist that anyone born with a congenital anomaly live out their lives with their anomaly, even though it can be medically, scientifically and socially accommodated?
Some further reading, which would suggest if and why there are more transgenders transitioning from male to female:
