I think the mechanism of shutting it off is important.

If you are going to argue for an acceptance of viewpoint diversity, with a corresponding acceptance of sound argumentation a critical part of the standard by which to prefer some views to others, as the way to control such things, then I have no quarrel. This is how such ideas have long been relegated to the refuse-strewn bad-idea-infested corners of public debate. It's pretty icky over there, but at least it's over in the corner and not a big deal.

But where do you think the Texas laws came from, moving trans rights dramatically backwards?

Is this primarily because trans people are viewed as subhuman and them having more rights is an anathema to the Texas legislature and must be fixed?

Or is it more because trans advocacy views are felt to be contentious, zealous, wrong, and among the darling issues of the left, and because of low awareness of actual issues, the feeling is that the dangers posed must be mitigated?

This matters a lot, because members of the first group, if any, are extremely hard to budge. Any members of the second group are amenable to persuasion by argument, education, and an appeal to compassion. An aggressive attitude might help keep the first group at bay...but it might drive people from the second group into the first.

It sounds to me like your position is that the first group is big and the second group is non-existent or at least too small to matter. And TaraElla's perspective is that the second group is big and matters a great deal.

As an example with gender-affirming surgery, if you think the first group is all there is, and they make some blah blah blah sounds to support their views like "children aren't mentally prepared to make life-altering decisions like this", they don't believe it. It has the intellectual content of blowing a bugle announcing that they're on their side, and the appropriate response is, "(*#@%&@#* you, you bigoted trans-haters, get every horrid evil restriction away from us".

If you think the second group is big, and people say, "children aren't mentally prepared to make life-altering decisions like this", you might instead respond, "But it's hugely important to their well-being...how can we establish clearly and convincingly, in every case, that this is necessary?"

In the first case, if you're right, the haters will be exposed as such, lose some support, and you might make progress with trans rights. In the first case, if you're wrong, the people who believe you're deluded zealots will see clear evidence that you really really are and start wondering about your humanity.

In the second case, if you're right, the people who express concerns might be mollified somewhat and you might make progress with trans rights. In the second case, if you're wrong, the haters will secretly go, "lol they bought it", and as soon as you accept one set of cautions they'll fabricate another set, delaying and degrading trans rights forever.

Do you agree with this assessment?