“… and concludes that the issue is difficult because unlike other civil rights struggles, transgender people’s demand for humanity infringes the rights of others.”
The writer sees this as intolerable, but the fact is trans-people’s actual demands in the here and now world — not a more nebulous “demand for humanity” — actually infringe the rights of others, particularly privacy rights.
To take the ordinary case with the most emotional significance, what does it mean in this society for girls to have to share dressing rooms with a morphological male? It happens. It is a boundary line for trans “rights” and it is not “seamless” as the author contends. Girls are mortified, frightened, bewildered. Since they are required to accept the person, they respond by avoiding the dressing room.
The trans lobby, and its agents in the administrative state downplay this by stating they may be “uncomfortable.” The phrase comes up over and again. It means “grow up,” “get over it,” “quit being such a phobe about having this morphological male’s junk in your face in an intimate facility.”
Deep, long-held cultural and personal standards are thus summarily dismissed in favor of the claims of the individual. Schools have been sued for trying to accommodate that individual somewhere short of this point. In fact, as the individual does not have to demonstrate “her” femaleness, the result of this will ultimately be to end sex-privacy in public accommodations for groups (in many cases group facilities will be replaced with individual ones, at some expense). For there is no test of the claim: the trans female need not even look like a female, act female, dress like a female, have female genitalia, have documentation from a medical specialist about her condition, or present certification from a legal authority. The claim itself will trump the sex privacy rights of everyone else.
Yes, this infringes on the rights of others.