But that, as awful as it is, isn't a vote as to whether or not trans individuals are people. It might be stupid, it might be barbaric...but given how we engage in stupid barbarism in other areas (e.g. imprison people suffering from mental health issues instead of treating them), it doesn't reliably indicate a "non-person" status.

"We are unconcerned with treating people badly" and "those things aren't people" are two different ways to get extremely bad outcomes.

If the point is "we good, them wicked!" it doesn't matter.

However, if the point is to improve the situation, it matters tremendously. For instance, if one is considered human, among the first options one should consider is a lawsuit charging that one's human rights are being violated. However, if one is not considered fully human, this is the last thing you should do.

It's like saying, "I'm dying of a heart attack! A heart attack is kililng me!" when you're actually dying of cancer. If all you want is sympathy and alarm, it doesn't matter. But if you actually want treatment, it matters immensely.

So are there any examples of where what is under a vote is actually the humanity of trans people? For example, this would be a clear example, if I hadn't just made it up: Whereas maintaining a firm appreciation of one's dimorphic sex is an essential duty of all adults in maintaining society and the preservation of the species, the State of Transphobania hereby declares that whosoever identifies honestly and consistently as transgender shall be taken as wards and dependents of the state, whereupon all matters of import shall be decided by officers of the state entrusted with their care, until such time as they regain their proper faculties and may be entrusted with the responsibilities and privileges of members of society.

This would be a clear and direct statement that the status as fully functional human was denied.