There's definitely middle ground that could be negotiated if the will was there. For example, regarding the T (of LGBT), a liberal stance on people presenting how they want, and making it unlawful to discriminate against them for it. But at the same time, protecting single-sex spaces rather than redefining them in terms of "gender identity", and not punishing others for exercising freedom of speech and belief.
So if Bob wants to call himself Brenda, wear a frock and make-up, and take drugs to grow breasts, then that's fine and he shouldn't be fired from his job for doing so. But this doesn't give him access to women's spaces, and if any of his colleagues don't want to refer to him as "she" then they shouldn't be censured for doing so either.
This stance also protects LGB who may want to organize same-sex groups, such as lesbian speed dating or gay men's saunas, without having individuals of the opposite sex imposing themselves for self-identity reasons.
A serious question: Do you believe that this person https://www.instagram.com/laith_ashley/, who is a transgender man, should be made to stay in women's spaces and use womens' restrooms?
Yes I do. Part of the middle ground compromise on this issue would be for people in general to be more accepting of those who don't conform to traditional gender roles and presentations, such as the masculine-styled woman whose Instagram you linked.
Another potential middle-ground position on this issue is for third spaces to be made available to those individuals who don't feel comfortable in the spaces designated for their sex. For example, India has laws mandating this for their Hijra demographic.
Hijras are firmly men. They’ve been around forever but no one says they are women, just men dressed up as women. They have their own specific niche is society.
If the prevailing notion is Bob is playing dress up as a woman I don’t think there would ever be a problem with the right. The left would never agree with that.
That's not what I got from the parent. Besides, everyone is dressing up one way or another depending on the situation. The problem is putting all your identity into it. And conversely also imposing on others that some characteristics you find important in your own belief system should be part of their identity. Extreme left and extreme right both have issues with that.
I think it depends on which factions of the right and the left. As I understand it, left-wing radical feminists mostly already hold that view. And some on the socially conservative right may still object to Bob/Brenda teaching their children, for example.
However I do believe this position, or one very similar to it, could be enough of a middle-ground compromise to satisfy most people.
So if Bob wants to call himself Brenda, wear a frock and make-up, and take drugs to grow breasts, then that's fine and he shouldn't be fired from his job for doing so. But this doesn't give him access to women's spaces, and if any of his colleagues don't want to refer to him as "she" then they shouldn't be censured for doing so either.
This stance also protects LGB who may want to organize same-sex groups, such as lesbian speed dating or gay men's saunas, without having individuals of the opposite sex imposing themselves for self-identity reasons.