But you're calling him (or at least Knowles) genocidal, and things like criminalizing misgendering (which has happened) is an attack on the "sheer right to exist" of anyone who has a strong intuition that there are two genders.

(That there might actually be a very fundamental difference between that intuition and what someone with gender dysphoria feels is not obvious to someone with that intuition.)

Let's be clear here: the genocidal do not have a right to commit genocide, and we endorse practically any measure, including war and other widespread violence, to stop it.

You spend some time arguing for speaking up, but I never disputed that it's worth speaking up--indeed, Carlson and Knowles and the like should be spoken up against, vociferously, for the portions of what they say which are incorrect, hurtful, and may engender violence.

My objection is that the content of the speaking-up if anything bolsters rather than undermines their statements when it makes accusations that go too far past what they've actually said. Coming up with bad ideas, phrasing them in a way that provokes the left to a hysterical response, and then using the hysteria as evidence that the left is crazy and only people on the right have any sanity left is standard operating procedure for the right.

There's no way to win that game convincingly, society-wide, played on its own terms. You can draw if you can make them look crazy too (which often is possible), in which case it resolves to two relatively entrenched sides and a disaffected middle that thinks everyone is insane--and sometimes with this kind of draw you end up with a narrow legislative majority that can temporarily and with constant risk of being overturned get things done. Or you can lose if you botch the response too badly. The way to win outright, though, is not to take the bait and instead knock down the bad ideas after taking a generous interpretation, leaving the (intransigent, unpersuadable subset of the) right as clearly the hysterical and/or misinformed side.