I don't think this is one of TaraElla's best-explained posts, but haven't you noticed that the gay activism asks were very rarely asking anyone to change their behavior--except stop going out of their way to discriminate against gays--while a huge number of the trans activism asks are?

Even if you think the asks are all necessary (e.g. even though only about 0.003% of the population are professional athletes (!!), and 3% of the college population are NCAA-level athletes (the highest fraction where it's ever likely to matter), it is critically important that every trans person has full access to the same sports immediately), you at least have to acknowledge that the friction in changing behaviors is greater. To be clear if the behavior is, "we group these people this way based on these standards" then saying, "no, you have to group these people that way based on these other standards", that is an ask for changing behavior. It's not that this didn't happen with gay activism ever (e.g. does a conservative Christian baker have to make a gay couple a wedding cake when their categorization for wedding cakes only includes the recipients as man+woman?), it just was a tiny fraction of the whole issue, whereas at least in online discourse it is the bulk of the issue for trans activism.

The stage set by gay activism to "just let us be ourselves" seems to have been extended to trans people pretty widely (or Chappelle wouldn't have had anything to talk about). But you have this other axis of friction which wasn't nearly so present with gay activism.

Given this, isn't the question whether "100% everything on the wish list right now" vs. "strategic advancement cognizant of the comfort level of society" is the more prudent way to proceed and more effective way to deliver an enriching life experience for more people sooner?