Keeping in mind that we're looking for unifying principles that transcend particular ideologies or "issues," compare and contrast:
These women say they are traumatised. The near impossible job for the Law is to try and assertain if that is the case when often there are no independant witnesses or evidence.
We all do things we regret. We shouldn't expect the Law to sort things out for us afterwards.
Convictions for rape should be made on objective not subjective evidence.
If somebody wants to prove that transgenderism is a valid medical condition, then they need to prove that it is not a fetish. Amazingly enough, this can’t be done either — not using any form of logic, anyway. If after 20 plus years of asking for proof, and the transfolk still can’t develope a logical argument, then a reasonable person starts to ask why.
Claiming that something is phobic can only be valid after the criticisms are actually addressed, and proven to be wrong. Asking the trans community to prove their assertions instead of just whining about their feelings is not a lot to ask. So prove it!
Context helps a bit (in both cases, the commenters are addressing arguments that were never actually made in order to bring legality and medicalization into it, respectively), but I think we can start to tease out some common denominators nonetheless.
1) Your feelings are irrelevant, particularly seeing as how we're talking about something that depends -entirely- on a subjective experience.
2) The burden of proof is on you to justify your experience, if not your actual -existence-, to me.
3) why: I am logical and rational and objective! Witness me being logical and rational and objective! WITNESS, I say!
4) also, -appeal to authority-
5) Stop whining! If anything, actually, you're hurting ME.
Further research is clearly indicated. Please send lots and lots of money to Me, c/o I Am Wearing My Serious Pants Cause On Account Of I'm Clever And Rational And Shit, box # lunch.