one of the main flaws with her argument is that it presupposes some clear binary between cis and trans women and a similarity of experiences within those categories. some trans women don't actualize their transition until they're in their late 50s, while others transition in their early childhood in a sense and never really "live life as a _" (scare quotes highly necessary). similarly, she's fairly obscure about what she considers "real" womanhood, as most TERFy-aligned people tend to be, because every definition fails to encompass people it's supposed to (e.g. intersex people, people with different chromosomes, people born barren, etc).
also, it rests on the idea that trans women can have male privilege before they transition. this is obviously a tricky subject, but in general it's kind of bullshit. laverne cox responded to this, for instance, by saying that her life as a "very feminine boy" didn't really allow for her to be advantaged by male privilege, especially when combined with the crippling dysphoria she was experiencing, which leads to a whole slew of other problems. it's possible that in some instances a trans women's previous visual appearance as a traditionally male person may grant them opportunities they would not have had, but characterizing women as having male privilege is hella sketchy and doesn't really reflect the realities of being a pre-transitioning trans women.
the lived experience of all women is very different. there is no discernable reason why being trans is the category that requires differentiation, and no real advantage gained by discerning it. There exist absolutely 0 issues that all cis women face that no trans women face, or vice versa. The distinction is based purely in TERFy rhetoric, even if it's been somewhat distilled.
I understand that Adichie doesn't really give an affirmative modality of what womanhood is, but as far as I am aware never has she distilled any form of "real" womanhood as some divine ideal. She doesn't seem to place any providence in these divisions other than signifiers of differential natures of the issues faced, even if under a common umbrella. All criticism against her seems to assume a normative value on cis-womanhood on her part, which I simply don't see.
“transwomen are transwomen and cis women are cis women and all are women. Except that ‘cis’ is not an organic part of my vocabulary.”
I have been going through her remarks and quite literally all she insists on, with those 2-3 lines is the fact that conflating womanhoods is problematic as far as she is concerned. I am not on completely firm ground here, but even the privilege of transitioning and maintaining a gender is differential across cultures and social classes. While Cox's argument is legitimate that being a "very effeminate boy" led to a slew of abuse in childhood (something I deeply relate to), male privilege isn't some unidimensional zero sum that's completely cancelled out in the process; which ISN'T to minimize or push aside the stigma and concerns around transitioning which can be just as challenging. We can go into more depth here if needed, please do provide analysis as to why, if you think otherwise. Point is, there is a danger in losing perspective the moment I take a statement asserting differential experiences to mean "trans-women aren't really women, and should be excluded from women's events"
there is no discernable reason why being trans is the category that requires differentiation, and no real advantage gained by discerning it. There exist absolutely 0 issues that all cis women face that no trans women face, or vice versa.
As far as I understand Adichie's concern she contests that person prescribed as female from birth is already inducted into a process of socialization that rests exclusively on the negation of her self, rummaged out for the performance in accordance to male ego. Her existence is as an extension of her reproductive capabilities, with a social structure designed to protect it's sanctity and ensure the propagation of the male line. A wound quite unique (note: NOT overarching, or above all other concerns) wrt birth-assigned femininity. She wants to preserve that hurt, which while probably underanalyzed, doesn't seem as moot as it is being made out to be. I realize that leads to a tangle of questions she ought to be answering, related to living with dysphoria, age of transitioning etc etc, which admittedly deserve an extensive conversation. As far as issues are concerned, off the top of my head: bathrooms, official identification, surrogacy and parenthood, access to hormonal medication and transition care etc as issues which are endemic to transwomen while cis-women especially outside Europe and NA, still face retrograde issues surrounding their sex organs: reproductive rights, female foeticide, organ mutiliation, marriage laws. For instance there are certain religious laws in India that disallow persons on their menstrual cycle from entering Temples. I don't see what's so harmful about admitting to a difference of problems stemming from differential lived experiences, which by the way still doesn't preclude collective support and action in finding a solution for all of the issues I have listed. I think your assertion is a little myopic outside a certain first-world social configuration. The feminist fight isn't equivalent and similar across the world. I'm assuming Adichie as a Nigerian is also coming from a similar place.
Taking the converse of your statement, without any affirmative evidence of exclusion, which doesn't rely on a logical leap, or an assumption of Adichie's value system, seems like a systemic negation of her entire career as a feminist. I think a few of responses here are on that tone. That runs the risk of leapfrogging from an intersectional critique to a callout-culture vitriol. Which I have a problem with. That's all.