The original essay she wrote was still very transphobic. Even if it seemed she had researched, she hadn't. The 'research' she was doing was following a genuinely insane bigot with a brain tumor who called for genocide of trans women, and a entitled upper middle class woman who really wanted to be able to deadname and misgender trans people at her contract job.

In that very first essay, she stated that trans women are a danger to cis women. She started from a position of hatred. All she has done is become more vulgar and less subtle. She is a threat to the existence of transgender people, and she has been since the very first day. The transgender community was pointing out how far gone she was on day one.

Here's an article that talks about what she said and why it was wrong in depth. The truth of the matter is that the response to that essay should have been a loud and resounding condemnation, but it wasn't.

I have been sexually assaulted before, too. I've never used what happened to me as justification to attack the rights of vulnerable minorities. The studies show overwhelmingly that the majority of women will be sexually abused in one way or another multiple times throughout their lives. And yet not every cis woman feels hate towards trans people. Many cis women support trans women. The majority of my friends are cis women, both queer and not. All of them support my rights. The majority of them have also been assaulted before by men. It's entirely irrelevant to the discussion, trans women are not men. The only possible justification there is that AMAB people are biologically rapists? Like there's something innate to the Y chromosome that makes you a rapist? Which is an absolutely wild way to view the world and the problem of sexual violence against women. Totally ignorant of why men get away with sexual assault so often. It's not genetics. It's entirely our society and culture that allows that to happen.