Every single successful advance of rights also involved civil discussion. Every single advance involved making a powerful, compelling moral case.
In the United States, no battle over rights was more violent and costly than the Civil War. And yet, the groundwork for support for the ending of slavery was not built out of pies in the face or out of slave revolts, but the keen yet accessible rhetoric of people like Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Jefferson. So effective were they at conveying the fundamental inhumanity of slavery--and in Douglass' case, the fundamental violation of the principles behind the Constitution--that the United States was willing to go to war with itself to stop those who refused to end the practice, with casualties of approximately 2% of the total population.
It was only after the position of greater rights was seen as a reasonable, moderate position that there was the will to end slavery.
What about rights pertaining to sexual orientation?
The Stonewall riots didn't do anything for gay marriage. The 1987 protest in front of the Supreme Court (protesting their defense of anti-sodomy law) didn't do anything for gay marriage.
What did? Public opinion. Why did that change? Civil discussion of the moral case that: we just are this way, and we just want what others want who want to share the rest of their life with someone.
Pies in the face were not an important part of it.
Simply throwing pies at people without building a broad moral consensus isn't fighting the virtuous fight; it's terrorism. Not very terrifying terrorism, if it's only pies--but it's still an attempt to force one's views by appeal to fear.
The last thing the trans community needs is to be correctly viewed as resorting to instilling fear rather than presenting a powerful moral case. When specific harms are enacted--like withdrawing gender-affirming care that is already ongoing--then a strident response with disobedience, and possibly pies, is warranted.
But the implication that Jordan Peterson should be met with pies rather than words both misunderstands how to ride the moral arc of history and gives tacit legitimacy to corresponding expressions of ill-behavior directed at trans people and their supporters.
Civil disobedience of various sorts is often necessary: sometimes because apathy rules otherwise, sometimes because it's necessary to demonstrate that certain mistreatments simply will not be stood for. But for it to result in lasting change, the groundwork absolutely must be in place. That's the hard part. That's where the work is needed.
Pies are exciting, but usually wrong.