I’m “Gender Critical”, because like many people born in the 1960s I see women as being a group of individuals primarily discriminated against by virtue of their sex - particularly in regards to contraception and the economic and social consequences of reproduction.

Sex is biological and objectively real. Gender is a social construct relating to imposed standards of masculinity or femininity.

How have we ended up reinventing the idea that sexed identity is the performance of innate gender roles or preferences? Just because we’ve allowed people to opt out by changing gender doesn’t make the idea of linking gender to sex any more acceptable. This is an entirely regressive state of affairs, and pointing that out is in no way hateful.

It is really not as hard and fast as "there's men" and "there's women" and "you can tell them apart by a quick genetic test".

There's basically a sliding scale from "definitely male" to "definitely female" (in unmodified body) and a mostly-but-not-always correspondence between said body and the genetic markers (XX and XY).

If the testosterone receptor codons are damaged, the extra testosterone that the XY chromosome normally produce will not get a chance to influence the fetus, so any make characteristics will be under-developed (or not developed at all). Heck, there have even been genetically XY people who have sustained pregnancy and given birth.

I mean, somewhere between 0.02% and 0.05% are born with effectively both make and female sexual characteristics.

So, yes, as long as you insist that "there are two sexes, and it is objectively easy to say which one is which", I would say that it is, if not hateful, at least ignorant and disrespectful.

Trans people, more than any other group, are acutely aware of the reality of biological sex characteristics.