That stance is fair enough. Though I’d like to point out that language can shape perception. And using terms like “trans rights” suggests that trans people are sufficiently different from “normal” humans that they require special rights. But, in my humble opinion, it would be so easy to formulate human/basic rights in a way that no subset specific rights are required, that the entire notion of X rights seems alien to me. Let’s assume we have four tiers of laws (true for some nations): constitutional law, common law, policy, and judicial precedence. Imagine the following subset of constitutional law:

• Constitutional law applies to all humans residing in the jurisdiction of the nation.

• Nobody has a right for unhurt feelings.

• Nobody shall perform an act solely for the purpose of hurting someone else’s feelings.

• Everybody has a right for individual bodily autonomy.

There’s no mention of race, religion, gender, … Yet, I’d argue that, for example, trans people are fully covered and protected by the wording. Required exceptions, for example limited accountability for minors, can easily be put into common law. If it becomes evident that some minority is factually disadvantaged, that could be addressed in policy without any need to extend the law because that is neutral and all-encompassing.

I feel like “we” (politicians/societies) are talking way too much about special laws for trans people, women, … when we should fix the root causes of overly specific laws/constitutions.

TL;DR: humans are humans, and imho human law should be for all humans and avoid special treatment of any subset, but be worded in a way that any special need is met as best as possible.

The debate pervert response is so aggressive that it activates even in contexts that make no sense.