This is only true for certain objectives.
If you want to remake the world according to a new set of ideals, you are going to face a lot of stiff opposition, and it's going to be a battle. You need strategy, tactics, reconnaissance, and a really thick skin for a really long time because it's not going to be easy.
If in contrast you want to leave the world as alone as possible, do things differently when it's really necessary but otherwise try to find as much joint harmony as possible, you don't need strategy, tactics, reconnaissance, and so on, or not nearly so much.
There have been multiple instances of each approach working (and failing).
Abolition (of slavery) was simply impossible to achieve through a joint harmony mechanism because in order to maintain slavery you had to draw really sharp distinctions between slave and non-slave. To those who believed in slavery, the idea that slaves could be free and equal was tremendously threatening. Remaking the world in the ideal that slavery was grotesque and horrid was a battle, but successfully won.
The Americans for Disabilities Act greatly improved expected conditions for people with physical disabilities, as the culmination of a long campaign of simply trying to be included as much as possible with as little fuss as possible--but yes, ramps are really helpful. There were no grand ideals to overturn ableism in culture, no "you can't play sports because it is unfair to those with physical disabilities who can't play them". There was no battle to speak of, and society gradually shifted to be more and more accepting.
Abortion rights seem like they might be all or none, but actually, with various conditions taken into account (age of fetus, reason for pregnancy, health of fetus, etc. etc.) it is amenable to being done gradually. In the U.S., the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision established a clear and fixed set of criteria which set off a decades-long fight between anti-abortion and abortion-rights camps. In the U.K. the Abortion Act of 1967 was written, intentionally or otherwise, to allow enough wiggle-room to adjust to prevailing attitudes despite allowing nominally less freedom than in the U.S.. Fast forward to 2022 in the U.S., and despite 50 years of opportunity to put the rights on a more solid footing, it never happened. The Democrats had a chance to codify the Roe vs Wade decision multiple times, but instead decided to remake the world in their ideal, with even more expansive rights. And then the Supreme Court overturned the decision. And nationwide abortion rights were gone, just like that, the victim of wanting a huge vindicating victory or nothing despite support for abortion gradually increasing over those 50 years.
If you own things, and they break, they're yours, so you should be able to fix them, right? Not so fast! Companies would rather you buy new things--they get more money--so they've come up with various means that make it essentially impossible (non-standard screws that you can't buy, encryption and digital hardware verification that serves no purpose but to frustrate repairs, etc. etc. etc.). People have been pushing on this gradually for decades and getting nowhere. No big deal if you can plunk down a thousand dollars or whatnot whenever some tech thing breaks. If you're of more limited means, though, the lack of a repair option can really negatively impact your quality of life.
That's just one example of each, but there are many more, and most of the recent successes seem to have been in the more gradual vein (reduction in bullying--gradual and partly working; gay marriage--gradual in the U.S. where it was rolled out slowly state by state as attitudes shifted, and successful; mental health support--gradual, etc.).
The trans rights movement seems to have bet the farm on the change-the-world strategy. This makes a real difference to where support might come from. People with traditional views of gender, but who are tolerant of individual differences--who might be willing to accept trans people as exceptions? No good. Gender is a social construct, period. Gender traditionalist = enemy. You don't want to build unity with them.
If you want to change the world ideologically, that's exactly right.
If you want to live a better life which is better because it can be more akin to the positive aspects of lives of other people, however, it's not so clear. It's worth a discussion.
I don't see the trans community having that discussion. Having the discussion, seriously, and rejecting anything but ideological revolution would be one thing. But the gradual meet-most-important-needs-as-effectively-and-unobtrusively-as-possible approach doesn't even seem to be on the radar of anyone who speaks loudly enough to hear. (TaraElla on Medium is one exception.)