So, if you have post-infection immunity against virus that you can prove (test blood reactivity against virus protein), and it's likely better than typical 2 doses (research shows), you should still be legally required to take 2 jabs even though there are often side effects, even serious ones?

Not OP, but if arguing against it is anti-vaxx, then I guess you should call me anti-vaxx and I'll call you unreasonable.

That's a really bad way to define ant-vax since that would encompass a lot of people following accepted practices with the measles vaccine along with some others.

Anti-vaxers hate all vaccines. Most of this thread is about following actual science and practices used for other vaccines. If you've had it, then don't get the vaccine, otherwise get the vaccine.

I agree with you, but society has recently decided to label anyone with these beliefs as an anti-vaxxer, so we'll have to get used to the new terminology

It's not about whether the individual "needs" the vaccines, but rather about rules a society can live by.

And those who argue the most don't really argue about "they don't need the vaccine", but rather assume the vaccine is much bigger risk or damage than is at all reasonable. And that, yes, puts you very close to the "anti-vaxx" bubble.