You're mixing up two things.

(1) There are people with extremist anti-trans views, which basically boil down to trans-people-shouldn't-exist. They are apparently happy to hurt people, and they apparently don't care.

(2) There are some people who think trans advocacy overreaches so greatly in some cases that it threatens or causes considerable harm to others, and the trans advocates apparently don't care.

You make good arguments against (1). But it is easy to argue against (1).

You occasionally bring in (2) but say almost nothing of merit against (2). However, (2) is sufficient for there to be a debate--an actual debate about tradeoffs between different people in society.

Maybe it's the case that only people of group (1) are reading this, in which case your title is correct. But I wouldn't just assume it.

Indeed, it's assuming that all opposition is of type (1) that is a considerable part of the overreach. It allows (1)ish types to draw unreasonable amounts of support from (2)ish types.

For instance, the "Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights" is a (1)ish-perspective document that gets a lot of support from people with a (2)ish outlook because, I think, there doesn't seem to them to be any alternative (and the document is written to not give away quite how bad it is on a cursory glance from someone who isn't paying terribly much attention to these issues--like they sneak in a "don't do any research that might prove us wrong" clause deep in the text).