If I can be annoying about language a bit- insisting on calling trans women "trans identifying males" makes you sound anti-trans rights as a whole instead of trying to add nuance to a complicated subject.
I agree there are complications and there's plenty of situations where one oppressed group opresses another and that those are hard to sort out on a purely "support the oppressed" ideology. But when someone starts talking purely about a specific nuance that's been made into a right wing talking point, its hard not to feel like the goal is to deliberately distract from the big picture.
In general though, I think you mischaracterize the left as not having nuance, instead of not wanting to debate nuance with people who are staunchly opposed and just trying to score points. I'm not saying that's what you're going for, but your first comment came off as combatative to me and I think you'll find people are more willing to share nuance and work through uncomfortable contradictions if you start by emphasizing what you do agree with. Talking IRL is much better with this too
"Trans Identifying Males" is a shibboleth used by the UK "gender critical" extremists, and it is exceedingly rare to see it used by a neutral party. Big red flag for a bad faith discussion.
It is a term that comes from gender-critical feminism but this is a mainstream view in the UK, there's nothing extremist about it. It's effectively a sensible middle ground between anti-trans parochialism and trans rights dogma.
Even the term "trans-identifying male" is a middle-ground compromise, to avoid calling them men and to not cede the argument by referring to them as women. In my experience, the most thoughtful and well-considered discussion on this topic has been with gender-critical feminists who have thought critically about their perspective and have it based in the material reality of sex.
