If transgenderism is eradicated, what happens to the transgender people?
He's elaborated on that, and that's the part of his assertion that I disagree with.
I've heard him (and others like him) speak on the topic before.
It seems that the staunch conservative position on this "well, then you just need to suck it up, live like the gender that matches your assigned sex at birth and deal with it...take meds or get counseling if need by" and they will use the approach of comparing gender dysphoria to schizophrenia...typically with something like "well, we don't all (as a society) pretend the voices in their heads are real and play along just to placate them, why would we handle this situation that way?"
Admittedly, that was my position on the matter a few years back (however, I've drifted toward a more nuanced position on it)
I heard another personality from the same organization use an analogy that seems to highlight where I think some of the frustration conservatives have on this issue is coming from (and it's a valid frustration, I just don't think they're handling it the best way).
It seems to be rooted in the fact that there's really no limiting principle the progressive side is willing to implement and stick to and the things that got labelled as "conservative slippery slope" end up being reality 5 years later.
So he equated issues surrounding modern gender theory to a tree. (and I'm paraphrasing here ->) Trying to find a "middle ground" on this issue ends up being like constantly trying to prune branches off the tree, and in the time it takes to prune one, two new branches sprout up. At a certain point, you reach the conclusion of "this way isn't working" and decide that it's better just to uproot the tree.
Like I said, while I don't agree with their approach, I can certainly understand the frustration. This would be true on a lot of other issues (going in both political directions). The "let's compromise and find middle ground" isn't a workable solution when one side is unwilling to implement (and stick to) their own limiting principles, and even worse when one side makes the very notion of limiting principles antithetical to their mission.
Perhaps a good comparison (for something on the other side) would be the gun issue. Given that there are some (probably more than "some") on the right who don't have a limiting principle on that, I know there have been more than a few on the left, who, while they wouldn't inherently be opposed to all gun ownership in a compromise friendly environment, have been pushed into that ideological position due to the perception that "this
trying to compromise thing isn't working, and unless we take a harder position to counterbalance theirs, they're gonna run away with this thing"
