Good

"It matters because it's a red flag that a stable person isn't going to want to change their gender, and it suggests perhaps their "gender" isn't the root cause of the problem at all."
Still ignoring the vast majority of the community
"Autism is on a spectrum (and mental illness in general). For the sake of argument, the majority of them may not tick all of the boxes, but they do trend in that direction."
See above. If you want to make assumptions based on portions of a community, you could argue white people are more likely to be mass shooters... Or that republicans are less likely to be educated, and so on. Making generalizations based on a minority is dishonest.
"Pretty sure blacks didn't have suicide rates 19 times the national average when they were "oppressed" during slavery, or had autism rates over 7 times the general population. We can compare this to another population if you'd like."
Pretty sure they had black families, who likely knew the struggle and accepted them as being their race.

"The amount of times I have heard (and made this argument myself back when I was into social justice and that sort of bullshit) this response.
There's a huge flaw in this style of thinking, because it assumes your opponent doesn't think it will affect other people, when they almost always do.
Even those so called "bigoted Christians," the "yerrr goin to hell" types lefties rant on and on about believe it affects others for religious reasons. I don't believe in God myself, but it's not hard to figure out why they think it will (they think it will cause them to lose favor with God, and that God will punish their society or w/e)."
So more or less, you're saying that other people have sensibilities, and that because it might offend them, it should be banned. You can apply this to literally anything. Hell, you could literally apply this the other way around - some view the proliferation of Christianity as bad due to some beliefs endemic to it, and thus, call for it to be outlawed (of course, nobody, sans an significant minority which has no real political power, actually believes this).
"As for me, it affects their families and other people in their life, as well as themselves, so that counts as "affecting other people.""
So it's affecting them solely because they chose to be unaccepting
"There aren't many people out there that "hate" someone for "no-reason," as such, that response serves no purpose."
Not really, there's a lot of needless, arbitrary hate. See: Nazi Germany, 90% of religious wars, the KKK, and so on

@SilverLining
"See above. If you want to make assumptions based on portions of a community, you could argue white people are more likely to be mass shooters"

Why do you expect me to argue against this? It's true, at least as far as I know. Facts are facts. So yeah, go ahead. White people are more likely to be mass shooters or w/e.

I'm not like you and pick and choose the truth based on my ideology

which, let's be honest, is what you do

That really bothers me

that point

'aight, but what I'm pointing out is that there's not really a causational argument to be made, and even then, it's the minority

Explain it

I want to pause right there

There shouldn't be legislation or bias

based upon the actions of an extreme minority

This particular conversation isn't about legislation

as you're persecuting many more people as a result

You brought it up in response to something different

or hatred

or dislike

which is really telling

whatever ya wanna say

of who you are

Who are your people

the people of the wild

"Or hate or dislike"

why does it have to be that? The debate was about letting them act on their desire

redundant, I know, whatever

So even then

it makes no sense

you brought up hatred, so I kinda assumed that

also, there's been some stuff on legal discrimination in the news where I live recently, so yeh

""Autism is on a spectrum (and mental illness in general). For the sake of argument, the majority of them may not tick all of the boxes, but they do trend in that direction."
See above. If you want to make assumptions based on portions of a community, you could argue white people are more likely to be mass shooters... Or that republicans are less likely to be educated, and so on. Making generalizations based on a minority is dishonest."

"Let's pick and choose facts that go in line with my ideology" is honestly what I just read out of that

but still, you should let 'em act on their desire

Is that what you meant?

It 100% sounds like it

I'm saying

I would never say something like that

Regardless of ideology

you shouldn't dictate your opinions based on the actions of a small minority within a group

You absolutely should

I don't think it's fair to say that all republicans are uneducated

Sure, they are