Bindel's arguments reflect positions claimed by those who "follow" feminist thinker Judith Butler.
The problem for both Butler and Bindel is that they are projecting a "Lesbian-Rad-Feminist" narrative onto the issue of transsexualism, assuming false equivalences between the narratives.
One of the key themes that seems to run through their reasoning is the abstract notion that there is no such thing as "identity separate from action" - that is to say our actions reveal our identities. They therefore contend that transsexualism is little more than a construct, rather than a part of someone's "core identity". (naturally, the life story of so many transsexuals flies in the face of that analysis)
While Bindel has a legitimate concern about post-operative "regret", she has focused on that, and ignored the various clinical protocols that exist to mitigate that risk. (I know some are going to hate this, but that's a big part of the HBIGDA "Standards of Care") Instead, she chose to frame her claims in a framework that implies that SRS is available "on demand" - which is not the case for most of us (unless we happen into a particularly ill-informed or unethical practitioner).
My real objection to Bindel stems not from her position, but the assumptions which her argument stems from. Although politically, transsexuals are "close cousins" to the GLB communities, it is very poor logic to assume that the Lesbian, or Gay, narrative can be applied to transsexuals.
(I had a rather interesting dialog with a Butler/Lacan specialist about this last fall - I'll post it here if anybody is interested)
