The issue, as I outlined in my post, is that the commentary set up in the beginning of the OPs post sets the narrative up in such a fashion where it does seem political. They may have their reasoning for starting that way (id Hazard from a lot of narrow conversations on teh subject), but it does not help their position in teh slight bit by starting this way. As I said, it discredits their arguments and positions almost out the gate as people will dismiss anything they say as political propagandizing.
This gets even more complicated because another point I have pointed out is how both sides tend to suggest the science is 100% settled in their favor.
But its not. At a scientific and social level, its not settled, though it DOES appear to lean more in favor of the 2 genders (masculine and feminine constructs) argument over the arguments of infinite genders. Is that mean its settled? No. There is much to still discuss and learn. And that of course will require us to cross certain bridges that are considered taboo.
For EXAMPLE: Is Gender disphoria a mental disorder?
That is a taboo that is not allowed to be fully discussed within proper discourse due to the idea that it would be dehumanizing to trans people. That feeling is often bolstered by the fact that there are, again, erroneous claims citing that the science is settled and its not a mental disorder, often equating it to sexuality, and therefore above reproach and scrutiny. Anyone whos in pursuit of knowledge should know that no subject should ever be above question. However, as more data comes out, there are issues with that position that cannot be easily explained. We could get to the serious heart of something and settle things once and for all IF we have the uncomfortable conversations and research into these things. But again, politics and social issues complicate the issue making that untenable.
Thats why I say that in regards to this conversation, nuance is heavily lacking.
Going back to how this relates to the issue at hand, you essentially have to broad camps: One side claims its an integral part of their existence and that it is offensive to question it, the other side claims that its nonsense and politically/socially motivated. So when one side advocates (usually in a hostile format as of late) for things like "Non Binary options", the other side sees it as a political push. Hence the issues.
Again, I must reiterate, nuance and courtesy for someone elses position, as well as an open mind in both directions, would go a loooong way in this discussion. Problem is, Im not seeing it, and I wont hold my breath expecting it to come.