The losing battle is coercing a majority into uniform perspectives which is impossible.
Just to be clear:
1) You already have the right to do this as long as you're not a government entity or a business.
2) You seem to have a "live and let live" philosophy, which I also do. That's the problem with this bill. It is not letting people live -- it's taking away their right to privately seek medical treatment for a serious, life-threatening issue.
It's amazing how "libertarians" suddenly become very pro-government when the government is enforcing something they like.
Stallman has been vilified for suggesting that young teenagers can consent, which he (fortunately) retracted.
I'm surprised that irreversible surgery is something that teenagers can generally consent to in the USA.
Consenting to therapeutic surgery with the extensive oversight of multiple doctors is
ABSOLUTELY NOT ANALOGOUS
to an adult raping a child. If you don't see the difference in those two scenarios, I don't think it's worthwhile to argue with you further.
But you know what? That doesn't solve the problem. You can't just ask people to leave their family homes, which also costs a lot of money and requires leaving behind a job. You can't just have "discrimination zones" in the country, where local jurisdictions get to decide that they violate human rights.
Where people choose to live is not an Econ 101 "efficient market".