> There is also rational opposition to GMOs, or at least to aspects of how they are used.

No, there is rational opposition to certain aspects of the use of particular crops, some of which happen to be GMOs. Since, to the extent that opposition is rational, it has nothing to do with the mechanism by which the traits that are problematically exploited were generated, it is completely irrational to generalize that rational opposition to "GMOs", or even attach it to GMOs.

That is at best an oversimplification. You cannot so easily separate the trait selection mechanism from the industrial practice and economics made possible by it in a meaningful way. It's not just particular crops, after all, it's also particular techniques. Sure you can object to the blanket label "GMOs" being insufficiently precise - but that's not terribly interesting.

Personally, I don't find "All GMOs are bad" and "All GMO resistance is irrational" stances to be very distinguishable in their intellectual laziness. Your mileage may vary.

The entire field of ecology has a fairly strong anti-GMO stance which you'll find baked into textbooks. See Odum & Barrett (2009)

https://www.worldcat.org/title/fundamentals-of-ecology/oclc/...

There's an entire chapter on the topic of GMO.

Dismissing objections as antiintellectual is simply false.

Given that one of those traits is "unable to reproduce", it's got everything to do with the mechanism by which they were generated.