Mob justice over what people said years ago is very dangerous. And due to the global nature of the internet, it is very hard to get the mob off your back. It seems many students have been denied their college admissions due to stuff they tweeted as a teenager. It seems in the modern world felons deserve redemption, but bad tweeters do not. Not to mention that cancelling people over what they said in the past is so stupid, that if applied consistently, will lead to funny scenarios. For example, if teenagers should be punished for their past tweets, why shouldn't be Joe Biden for saying on the record that he doesn't support same.sex marriage in the 2008 VP debates. This is not even counting what opinions biden held in the 20th century.
It seems that we have come to a point where you simply can't speak on certain topics, neither in the affirmative nor in the negative, and so most people end up saying what will keep the mob at bay. Case in point, all the people attacking JK Rowling do not want to say that any man who self ids as a woman should have access to women's private spaces.
How many of them have still been denied after showing genuine remorse for their views? Nobody is owed a college admission.
> all the people attacking JK Rowling do not want to say that any man who self ids as a woman should have access to women's private spaces
Nobody's saying that men who falsely claim to be women should have access to women's spaces.
What are they saying?
You don't see people saying "trans women are biologically female" for a reason.
I appreciate the answer. Are there situations where those of the female sex as a group have a legitimate special interest that does not include trans women?
Obviously: medical stuff. The needs of trans women and cis women are not aligned when issues of sexual health come up. Trans women don't have uteruses, for example, and healthcare for trans women differs greatly from assigned-female-at-birth people. Here, the interests of trans women, AFAB women, trans men and AMAB men are all somewhat unique. Note further that in this situation men (specifically trans-men) and AFAB women can have significant overlaps in needs.
Do you mean more in social spaces, where women as a group are interacting as women and not as females? Because as a society we don't often differentiate between female and women's spaces, and in general we seem to apply the label "female" to many things that are really "women's".
Offhand, I can't think of many social spaces where women interact as females, and not just as women. Perhaps spaces devoted to motherhood? As for the women's spaces, those being trans exclusionary is, imo questionable in most cases. Although I did see a trans person I know recently point out that they are able to relate with trans women's experiences often more deeply than with cis women's, so the reverse would also likely be true.
As for your other question:
> I should add, I see people use the phrase "assigned male/female". Which seems odd to me if sex is a biological construct rather than a social construct. It seems the correct phrase would be "assigned man/woman". Is there something I am missing?
I agree the terminology here is weird. But implicit in your framing is that someone is assigned a gender based on their sex. One is not assigned "man/woman" at all. Or, insofar as a trans woman is AMAB, they were also assigned woman at birth (but this assignment is mental), that's why they chose to transition their appearance, to better align with their gender.
I'm not an expert, but my guess is that the "assigned" framing is a way to help distance the person from an aspect of themselves that can cause dysphoria. If you see yourself as a woman, you might strongly prefer to be biologically female, but you can't be. Framing this as something you were assigned helps to address that.