I think you are wrong. I don't think all of America is ready to embrace trans rights the way it is ready to embrace gay rights. It's too much too fast. There is going to be much more back lash then there was against gay rights. The people that read SI might not cancel their subscriptions (because at this point if you have a print mag subscription you are probably just too lazy to cancel) but I don't think its going to start the right conversation. It will probably just help confirm the opinion that the media is left of their positions and empower the trump movement. With gay rights many people were able to say that they know a gay person and that that person is much like them. I don't think many people know a trans person outside an awkward interaction they had once or twice. Trans rights does not poll as favorably as gay rights did. As gets rammed through expect a serious wedge/identity issue backlash.With the whole god/guns/gays bullshit sidelined to the fringe the Democrats might as well become the Republicans so that the Republicans can go ahead and rebrand as the Taliban and be done with it.
'Member back when Murphy Brown had a kid out of wedlock? And the cultural discussion was varying shades of "what a dumb thing for Dan Quayle to go to the mattresses over" and "but the value of the family should not be diminished?" The conversation was mostly about "well obviously there are single parents in the world but do we want our culture to acknowledge that." Then Ellen DeGeneres kissed a girl on TV and mostly, the conversation was "it's about damn time" while the conservative movement basically toed the line at "marriage is between a man and a woman" and "love the sinner hate the sin." Then we had Will & Grace and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and pretty much every secondary bitchy gay character on every reality TV show ever and slowly but surely, being gay wasn't weird, it just meant you couldn't get married. But that ship has sailed. We've got two entire shows - RuPaul's Drag Race and TransParent - dedicated to transgender people. I got a checker at my local grocery store who wears a skirt and makeup sometimes - just often enough to keep you guessing and make you sort of uncomfortable with whether they're "he" or "she" today. But I think we're to the point where most people will publicly acknowledge that the person wearing/not wearing the skirt is bridging a void of discomfort far deeper than the people observing. The conversation we're having now is "does walking around in women's clothing make you a criminal." Except we can't even have that conversation because by making it about the bathrooms, it's become "do we want to shame perverts by making them use bathrooms in such a way to make everyone uncomfortable." Which for most of us becomes "this is a really awkward and uncomfortable conversation - why are we even having it?" Someone has to not just be against "transgender rights" - they have to be vocally against transgender rights in such a way that it's difficult to not look like a knuckle-dragging throwback. Because really, "where do they tinkle" is the only place this battle can happen - they can already vote, they can already marry, they can already serve in the military, they can already enjoy full citizenship in every way shape or form, the only legislative question left is "where to pee." Sure, there's a whole bunch of cultural warfare left but from a "rights" standpoint, the bathroom is all there is. It's gonna be a rare conservative that chooses to die on that particular hill.
In some ways its true but some interesting questions come up when you legislate gender and race into law and then accept that race and gender are fluid. If a company/government/university has a quota for men or women then can one change their gender to qualify. There are grants and carve-outs for woman owned businesses for example. Can I self identify as a black woman can claim them? This wouldn't be a problem if we just didn't put gender and race into law but since we do, it is. Its the same argument I had against gay marriage expansion, its not that gays shouldn't marry its that they government should have no say in what is/isn't marriage. Marriage licenses and marriage as a legal state recognized concept should not exists. One should not get any benefits or have to pay extra taxes just because they got married.- they can already vote, they can already marry, they can already serve in the military, they can already enjoy full citizenship in every way shape or form, the only legislative question left is "where to pee."
This is the crux of the issue: are we concerned about people taking advantage of transgender norms in order to further their cisgender motives? Or are we only pretending to be? I worked for a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise that did all sorts of contracting. We still had to get the work. We often didn't. We had more opportunities than we might have had with a male president, but not enough to care about. Certainly not enough to bother going Tootsie on it. And that was government work anyway. You get zero legs up as a DBE in the private sector. I agree with you on the "ban all marriages" front and have said as much for years. But that's not going to happen and we all know it.
