Here's why it matters, returning to the example you chose of a basketball player. If they're legitimately living as a girl, then yes, they absolutely should be playing on the girls' team. If they're just doing it for a perceived advantage, then they shouldn't.
What you're trying to do is...
No, you're not. You can't even get the left's position on this correct. You asserted in the first post in this thread that gender dysphoria is a choice.
When you come up with your own incorrect version of someone else's argument, and then attribute it to them, that's a strawman.
47. Misread 1900s as 1990s (and answered zero), and disagree with them on question 10 (Congress does have the authority to overrule the Supreme Court, by sending an Amendment to the Constitution to the states to be ratified).
Considering that I already addressed this scenario in post #20, this must be some new definition of the word "before" of which I was previously unaware.
Let me see if I can recap where we're at here... a bunch of people want to exercise their right to free speech to call others freaks and whack jobs, but then think they have a right not to be shamed or ridiculed for saying it. That about covers it?
No, "defense of marriage" amendments often included "or marriage-like status" clauses specifically to prevent that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions
Besides, how did they even propose that without getting laughed out of the room...
Meh, I guess? I don't see how declining to shop somewhere, and letting others know why, is "terrorizing" someone. That's setting a pretty low bar compared to actual terrorism, don't you think?
Personally, your idea of "terrorism" reminds me of the time Huckabee called boycotts against...
Rape victims don't choose to be raped. On the other hand, no one is forcing businesses to take a stand on social issues, in either direction. Those that do so accept the results, both positive and negative.