Make it illegal for people to change their birth certificate. Make it so that all laws apply based on their original birth certificate, regardless of any changes having been made in other states or countries. Make it illegal to use facilities meant for the opposite gender. Expand fraud to include claiming and presenting as a gender not on their birth certificate, specifically when the other party is paying (yes, this could run into free speech issues). Legally declare it to be a mental illness (much like how federal law declares marijuana to have no medical value, actually being aligned with existing science is not required). Passing laws banning any form of transitioning involving minors. Pass laws introducing trans-panic as an affirmative defense for assault or homicide. Laws that prevent adoption by trans individuals (to the extent the state can do so).
I'm sure law makers spending months can come up with far worse laws that I could in 5 minutes.
Except that they haven't though. A lot of the things you list have never even been seriously discussed. Some of them are very debatable (pro or con) on their own, such as making it illegal for minors to transition.
I think you're making a strawman and I still don't see what any of this has to do with not allowing public drug consumption.
>I think you're making a strawman
I think you don't have a good understanding of the sentiment large groups of the population have for trans people.
>and I still don't see what any of this has to do with not allowing public drug consumption.
You might want to go reread the entire thread. One use posted about a potential foundational reasoning that could be used to outlaw drug use in public and the rest of the conversation has been about how that one foundation is inadequate because of the unintended consequences of applying it elsewhere. Specifically, it was concerning one individual who reacted to it on a personal level, and trying to explain why the second individuals interpretation was not incorrect even if unintended.
A person can use entirely different foundations to reason that public drug use as bad and this wouldn't apply at all to them.
Put simply, this is not about not allowing public drug consumption, this is about one potential reason for not allowing public drug consumption.
> I lean heavily towards giving people the freedom to do what they want, but in 'private' and without burdening public life of others. If people want to light up or shoot up, so be it. But I think a community must have ways to discourage or push people out of the public sphere who practice unwelcome and unsocial behavior. The gov't fully feeding, clothing, and sheltering large groups of addicts is impractical and unviable in most/all places.
As you can see there's nothing about trans people in that statement. I don't agree that this is an invalid way to feel, it's ok to label some behavior as antisocial. That doesn't mean that all of the sudden totally unrelated topics become antisocial. You say yourself that the anti-trans people don't have the power to impact these laws (and the constitution would stop them anyway). Do you really believe that there's no such thing as antisocial behavior that should be discouraged?
gay and trans panic defenses are still allowed and used, today, in much of the usa