I literally just want people to actually be free to express themselves and any laws that limit those expression is a violation of freedom of expression. Of course, I don't believe people should be free to do harm to others, but someone dressing in drag, crossdressing, or simply existing does not harm others. Now, of course, I don't want people exposing sexual acts to minors as that does harm the minor. I also don't want people sexually exposing themselves to adults who did not consent to that happening, again, that harms people. But if someone isn't violating others, then I find it a tall order to consider drag queens, crossdressers, and trans people existing to be harmful toward other people. I have to be real with you and say that no one is going to please everyone and arguing the that discomfort of others is a reason to create laws limiting freedom of expression is honestly immature. Sorry if someone living their life makes another person uncomfortable, but that person can simply not get involved and even leave. If an adult man (crossdresser or drag queen) is out in public and minding their own business, then it should be their right to do so. It is not another person's right to tell them that they are uncomfortable and that the other person should change for them. Doing so violates their rights to expression. And bathroom laws don't help anyone. Trans people using the bathroom doesn't hurt anyone. They aren't protecting women and children as most cases of them being violated in the bathroom are criminals who already ignored the laws, to begin with. Laws that harm trans/gender-nonconforming people don't make the world safer, they only make the world harder for people trying to live their lives.
I’m a very practical man - I look at the matter based on the equipment within, not the sign on the door - I treat that as a suggestion. The disconnect people feel is partially caused by inconsistency in how your (the royal your) case is argued. I have a specific set of “ograns”, to simplify the matter, so when nature calls, I go wherever the nearest urinal is, and only failing that do I look for stalls nearby - the situation has to be extreme for me to consider going next door to my designated space, which I have done by the way because I don’t particularly care - I need to go, so I’m going, good luck stopping me. On the flip side, I imagine that if I had a different set of organs, I’d probably go to the nearest area that has stalls and sanitary bins, the later being very bizarre contraptions indeed that kind of over complicate the simple notion of a rubbish bin, but then again, lady-specific equipment is usually complicated. As such, you kind lose me when you say that you want to go to a room that’s not equipped to serve your body type, regardless of what the badge on the door is. May as well be “M” for Mario and “W” for Waluigi for me, when I need to take a piss, I’m taking a piss, and it’s either going on the porcelain or the nearest wall, so trying to stop me has negative consequences, but not for me.
I get that this is how those people “feel”, but how they “feel” doesn’t invalidate how others “feel” about it, which is why I said the issue is more difficult than the way you’re presenting it. Nobody’s pretending that trans people don’t exist, but they might not necessarily feel comfortable sharing a locker room with someone of the opposite sex, and there’s really nothing we can do about that. I never claimed that there should be laws governing this sort of stuff, but it’s not the conservatives that made this a big issue - this used to be governed by general societal consensus. It’s the left wing that insisted on introducing laws that govern unspoken social contracts, as far as I’m concerned this is a matter for the venue to figure out. In your pursuit of equality and your attempt to stamp out discrimination you’ve put matters previously settled with a handshake into the government’s domain, so now the government decides, and argues about, all of these nonsensical distractions.
I don’t really know what to tell you, but there are usually better explanations than malice. In fact, I’m willing to wager that most politicians don’t particularly care about this at all, they’ve got better things to worry about. All of these laws exist to appeal to the electorate - it’s not uncommon for both sides of the aisle to enact laws *knowing* that they’ll be struck down by the first judge that comes across them, in fact, that’s kind of a boon. They can say they “totally tried”, but “once again the judiciary stands in the way of much-needed reform”. They know these laws won’t stand, it’s why they make’em - they get all the publicity and none of the responsibility. You’re not 5, surely you realise this.