Okay, so I've been refraining from making any sort of statement on this situation because I'm a cis man and my opinion shouldn't really amount to much on any trans or nb community policy, so I've just kind of shut up about it.
But I feel I can comment on one general aspect of this situation: I don't think we have a lot of tools for processing problematic viewpoints in people we either support or aren't strictly speaking against.
Because like, a lot of the opposition we face is either trolls or highly damaging, toxic, and just shitty individuals like steven crowder. There's no real conflict to saying "Fuck Steven Crowder" because he's a net negative to the community, pushing alt-right lies and propoganda while persecuting innocent gay people like Carlos Maza.
But then we have situations like this where Natalie Wynn clearly has issues, which are significant to the point that it's legit hurting some people, but is also a major source of good with her videos that communicate a trans perspective and deconstruct alt-right groups and other topics. And the responses I see range from "Okay, she fucked up, but have empathy" where it seems like we're just supposed to forgive her and seemingly give her a carte-blanche until she crosses some line of being truly reprehensible and unforgivable, or "She fucked up bad, and we need SOMETHING from her", be it an apology, a resignation, whatever.
And obviously neither of these are particularly productive, but then what other path do we take here? When one facet of a person is doing active, genuine good and another facet is doing harm, how do we work about preserving the former while fixing the latter? I don't know if we have the linguistic or conceptual tools for that because so much of our energy is spent on assholes that are absolutely reprehensible.
I'm not sure what the fix is, this is just my observation so far.