Trans issues might best be treated through the lens of Religion. The West has developed a lens for secular religious tolerance. You respect the people of a religion, but you have no obligation to obey their practices. A gentile has no obligation to observe the sabbath...

A Jew need not take communion, nor an atheist be required to know the direction of Mecca.

With trans issues, this might mean that trans people are respected, but no one feels pressure to publicly affirm concepts like "gender identity" or bespoke pronouns. But is that feasible?

A pillar of belief, "gender identity", isn't always a privately held belief, like Christ = God, or Muhammad = final prophet etc.; it is often public. Pronouns are frequently employed in conversation, much more than the notion of whether Christ=God or Muhammad=final prophet.

Stating and using specific pronouns (public confessionals) are frequent/dynamic events. This poses a difficulty in applying the religious lens because it doesn't adhere to the Christian secular distinction that the West uses to treat religion: "render unto Caesar" etc.

So to some it might seem that, as more & more places indulge in certain social justice rituals, there is a feeling that the separation of church & state is not being upheld.

Since a free society doesn't require members to state what they don't believe (e.g. for some: using "she" or "he" for people they don't see as "she" or "he"), this poses a problem if there is such pressure to state such things. And that is what appears to be happening.

So how to countenance a new religion (if that is the right way to think of it) that doesn't fit in the box of other religions, chiefly because of the nature of its public confessionals? @DebbieHayton

Maybe it will have a shorter shelf-life, where current dogma supports using pronouns etc. but many privately oppose it (preference falsification), leading to a future preference cascade (perhaps a consequence of economic depression changing the social calculus)...

Maybe it will have a longer shelf-life. But if it does have a longer shelf-life it will have to rectify this public confessional dilemma. It will have to find a way to not infringe on free though/speech, while, presumably, retaining its pillars of belief/pronouns etc.

So what does that look like? First, it would require public acknowledgement that it is not morally reproachful to not buy in to the notion that someone is a "she" when you see them as a "he".

Critics of this notion might suppose that it is respectability-politics incarnate & asymmetric to how we treat cis people (i.e. calling a man "she" or a woman "he" *is* often seen as offensive & purposeful provocation) ....

But they might also be overlooking the asymmetry in population of both groups. If trans people are 1% of the population, then that means they must recognize that they are 1% of the population, and perhaps think of long-term acceptability as the goal.

Doesn't mean that trans people aren't owed respect, but it does mean that there is not an infinitely elastic supply of public goodwill to test. Across an imperceptible threshold, a portion of the 99% that is skeptical might become the majority and find there own self-assertion.

As trans writer @DebbieHayton writes, "attempts to change the law to our advantage by policing the words — and even the thoughts — of others will not end well for us."

Key emphasis: "for us"

So, how best to navigate the uncertain future?

Is it feasible to have trans people publicly affirm their own belief/desire, to "go by she" or "go by he/they etc.", and, simultaneously, communicate a respect for those that don't wish to use such pronouns or sanction such beliefs?

"I prefer to go by she, but I respect the freedom of thought/speech of any who disagree"

Could this be a basis on which to engage the 99% in an honest manner?

Critics might say that without the intolerant strain there would've been no progress in acceptance in the first place

Ok, fair. But there are different strategies for getting rich and staying rich. One doesn't keep accelerating once on the highway. Diff strategies best suit different stages of things. Scale matters. The scaling up of acceptance might require a reassessment of public engagement

Perhaps there is not enough focus on the long-term among trans activists; if so, it might betray that they don't think of their movement as a religious movement. A Jewish son might not just think about how he is Jewish, but how his great-great grandchildren will be, too.

"I prefer to go by she, but I respect the freedom of thought/speech of any who disagree"

Other religions are often implicitly deferential in tone, ("I prefer to think of Christ as God but I respect the right of others to think otherwise"), but often not.

But a "religion" that imposes so frequently and explicitly on the conversational sphere might need as explicit a statement of respect and tolerance for alternative views.

(not to mention bathroom issues, not mentioned in this thread)

Give respect and get respect, the ol' saw goes. But what specifically does the respect of trans activists, for the freedom of thought/speech of skeptics, look like in practice in the public square? @DebbieHayton