Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an affected individual: Public discourse on this issue is plentiful and, unfortunately, usually full of wrong information, misconceptions and "my favorite scientist said otherwise" (probably on the JRE, against a dozen or so professional medical associations) gotchas from exterminationist groups that get invited on to have a "balanced" conversation. Transgender people do not have large political or economic impact…
[flagged]
I should have used the word "eliminationist". This is a modern way to say "genocide by social death". The GOP already attempted to introduce a federal bill that would redefine the act of being trans as sexual, which would bar trans people from essentially every public place where minors could be present.
Dame Magazine has a good high level overview:
https://www.damemagazine.com/2022/03/15/trans-people-are-in-...
And here's some academic reading on this (and also why it's called genocide despite nobody being killed in the streets, common misconception):
https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...
One such organization is the Heritage Foundation, who are behind the push to remove queer literature from schools.
https://translegislation.com/bills/2022 has a great overview aside from that.
> I have never heard someone advocate for the death penalty transgenders.
https://www.advocate.com/politics/2022/3/29/ex-gop-candidate...
(also, transgender is an adjective, you don't plural it)
> I only ever hear about such things from people who are against debating people on the trans issue, because they label the people they are debating against as such.
That's an issue with your bias and possibly with the media you consume, I can't help you with that.
> This strategy doesn't help your cause.
I have learned that those who are easy to compromise on their stance over optics issues weren't true allies to begin with. Gains in LGBTQ rights have historically never been achieved through appeasement.