Maybe you're too young to remember when "gay rights" was also an "ontological battle" ? -- a huge a fight over whether such an "identity" was anything other than a fundamental deviance, and a lot of rhetoric to the effect that it violates "natural order." It wasn't just theological thing from Christians, it came from the mainstream of society.

Some people still speak this way in North America but it is fringe. It wasn't fringe when I was a kid. It was the expected way of thinking about sexuality.

In the early 80s at least there was only two "mainstream" ways to talk about homosexuality, as far as I can recall:

1. what happens in people's bedrooms is none of my business, just don't talk about it in public and expect tolerance, or

2. this is total deviance and a mental illness and needs to be cured. (Oh, and they deserve HIV for such unnatural behaviour.)

That changed, but only in the 90s/2000s, to an understanding that homosexuality itself is "natural" ("born this way"), and the so-called iron-clad laws of natural behaviour were "allowed" to include homosexuality. And even gay marriage.

Appeals to laws of nature and assumptions about what is natural mask ideology, and often look completely ridiculous 50 years later.

I remember the nature vs nurture debate, and always disagreed with it. I think it pigeon holed and disempowered the gay and the queer community for decades. I think it overstated the science, and understated the value of human autonomy.

That said, the battleground was about what they could do, so a live and let live compromise was possible. Gradual acceptance followed and continues increasing today.

With Trans, there battleground is belief, and even more critically, identity. Accepting homosexuals didnt require people to redefine themselves, their own gender, and that of the one they are attracted to. Self identity is incredibly important to people.

Conservatives present it that way, but I haven't seen that in practice. The majority of trans people are perfectly happy with people believing whatever they want as long as they treat other people with respect and don't discriminate against them.

I guess it really depends on the space. The trans debate is happening online in an extreme way that simply wasn't possible during gay rights movement of the 90s and early 2000's.

I agree that most of my trans coworkers and acquaintances seem satisfied with being treated the respect I give anyone, and keep any unflattering thoughts to myself. Meanwhile, there is a contingent of zealots on reddit that call me a bigot if I dont want to date a trans-woman or think biology should be considered in sports. Is that discrimination?

What is discrimination? Is it any delineation in treatment or perception from a cis-gendered person?

I have given a lot of thought to the topic because I support others having personal autonomy, but place value on my conceptions of gender.

> It ask is not just for the right to exist, but to be placed within the gender heterosexuals are attracted to and accepted as no different. In this way, it lacks the libertarian arguments of gay rights.

No one is forcing you to date someone you're not attracted to.

I find that to be an extremely common argument against trans ppl. It's very similar to the whole gay panic thing. I was surprised when I realized how worried some cis men were about being "tricked" into sleeping with a trans person. As if there are so many trans people and as if all of them want to get into their pants.

> It's very similar to the whole gay panic thing. I was surprised when I realized how worried some cis men were about being "tricked" into sleeping with a trans person.

Most of the time I see the argument that people feel pressured/forced to date someone they're not attracted to it's not about men being "tricked"

https://web.archive.org/web/20211028041752/https://www.bbc.c...