But gay men have been and are excluded in some places from places which are viewed as exclusive to heterosexual men (for example, the army). I think you are rig

But gay men have been and are excluded in some places from places which are viewed as exclusive to heterosexual men (for example, the army). I think you are right that trans rights presents a somewhat more radical case to the public, in the sense that people ask that their gender identity be recognized, but this is hardly either an argument against trans rights nor, really, an argument of a fundamental distinction between gay and trans rights. For example: some Americans currently deny the existence of gay people (and they view homosexual behavior as purely pathological). Thus, part of the gay rights movement is the demand that the possibility of gayness existing is real and that gayness is legitimate be recognized. This is very concordant with the trans rights struggle. You probably have heard of NAMBLA. Lots of anti-gay rhetoric focuses/focused on this extreme, frankly absurd, organization. There were elements of the gay community which defended it as well. We can repudiate NAMBLA without repudiating gay rights, but many conservative forces want us to view them as inseparable. When we allow the reactionary right to select the most absurd versions of trans rights and tell us they constitute a total repudiation of trans rights, we fall into what should be an obvious rhetorical trap. Again, if progressive people had fallen into this trap in the 70s, if gay people had allowed this rhetoric to silence them, you'd probably still be in the closet. And also, I don't know what your talk of cultural differences is supposed to accomplish. I'm an upright liberal minded modern guy, I'm not going to show up with militarized police and force you to change your mind. But cultural differences really do not compel me to respect your opinions. I respect your right to have an opinion, I can still disagree, and vehemently.