Stop denying nature and science

That is understandable. If they have a XY chromosome pair they are biologically male (the doctors at the hospital put 'male' on their birth certificate) and nothing can change what they are.
Let me ask you this: do you suppose that a genetic abnormality or birth defect that occurs in less than half of one percent of the population should be used as an argument to coerce the entire population to deny science and ignore reality and cater to the desires of those who want to deny science and reality who may not even have said genetic abnormality or birth defect?

Check out this user's latest comments.
imgflip.com/user/Evidence-BasedReality

Since when was "less than half of one percent of the population" trying to "coerce" society? It's been the other way around in where I live (North Carolina); Christians trying to force their views on people like me.
Also, more of the population are accepting, not against. There's a lot more to gender identity than just thinking you're the opposite gender. Identity is who we are, no matter the genetic code you were born with.

You didn't really answer my question but that is understandable if you didn't quite understand so I'll explain further and ask again.
Three percent of the population (the L and G in the LGBT+) already have the full force of government coercion behind them forcing people to go against their consciences and cater to them. (Look up the bakers, photographers, florists who have had their livelihoods destroyed because they didn't want to participate in same sex ceremonies.)
From your comment "more of the population are accepting, not against" that makes me think you don't mind having the majority opinion forced on a minority as long as that majority opinion agrees with your opinion. But the question is should everyone have to change their lifestyle and their level of comfort to cater to the desires of the less than one half of one percent, if not willingly then by coercion of government force and pressure by big business and sports associations?

You're trying to make it seem like the transgender community are trying to make everyone transgender, but in reality conservative cisgenders are trying to make trans people cisgender.
The L and G of the population don't have the full force of the government behind them, as some politicians still want to oppress them. Why is it moral to oppress people based on their sexuality, but immoral to have a wedding cake?
I never said that the minority opinion should be forced to agree with LGBT people, but the minority opinion shouldn't want to oppress them either. No one is going to have to change their lifestyle; nothing is going to change. Changing lifestyle to cater for others is what people thought would happen if African Americans were given their rights during the 1960s. Were any lifestyles changed? If any "lifestyles" were changed, that meant ending the bullying against African Americans, but that's not a lifestyle, that's an unprovoked attack. If lifestyles were changed because of transgender people, that would mean ending transgender bullying. Is this what you're asking? If not, give me an example of what "lifestyle" would change.

"You said you "don't believe that transgender people are denying science or ignoring reality" but the majority of the 'transgender' population don't have this rare genetic abnormality you brought up, do they?"

It's rare, but not invisible, and we shouldn't ignore it. The government we live under now is ignoring something big called climate change, so who knows how much they care about LGBT issues.

I know many black people that repudiate the comparison of the black civil rights struggle to attempted imposition of a few people's delusion on society.

I don't see the difference because I believe everyone is equal. If only there were more people who thought that way, then this country would be better.

I propose that many lifestyles would have to change to accommodate men in dresses who do not obviously look like females. Namely the lives of our wives, daughters, sisters, and mothers. I'm a Christian and I'm never going to accept nor teach that it is OK to go along with the delusion of a person who "doesn't feel comfortable in their natural body."

Give an example of how a woman's/girl's lifestyle would be changed.

I'm an atheist and I'm never going to accept nor teach that it is OK to go along with the delusion of a person who "doesn't feel that transgenderism is right".

"Tell that to the artistic and creative professionals that have had their livelihoods destroyed because they did not want to use their skills to recognize same sex ceremonies."

Why don't you tell the people who have been oppressed for the majority of their lives about their "full force of government"?

Is it bigotry or biology? Is it a phobia or human nature for a woman or young girl not to feel comfortable disrobing or relieving herself next to strange (unknown) man? But who cares about the feelings of women who don't want to go along with the cultural/sexual revolutions, right?

In a restroom, people have stalls. I don't know how they're invisible.
Secondly, a transgender woman would make herself has feminine as possible, and not even try to put discomfort on a younger individual.

"The L and G of the population don't have the full force of the government behind them, as some politicians still want to oppress them."
Tell that to the artistic and creative professionals that have had their livelihoods destroyed because they did not want to use their skills to recognize same sex ceremonies. Those folks have been fined and if they do not win in a higher court and still refuse to pay the fines the full force of government will come down upon them and confiscate their assets and send them to prison, regardless of however many politicians disagree with the LGBT+ position. That is what "full force of government" means.

You said you "don't believe that transgender people are denying science or ignoring reality" but the majority of the 'transgender' population don't have this rare genetic abnormality you brought up, do they? So the majority is just "uncomfortable in their natural body" right? So that uncomfort is psychological and does not stem from a physical abnormality or ailment, right? So instead of seeking psychological treatment they would rather deny science and ignore that 'something just ain't right' and seek alleviation of their discomfort by means of coercing (through government force) everyone else to accommodate their feelings.

If a person wants to dress, act, and live as the opposite sex they have every right to do so. There should be no law written to stop them. There should also be no law written to force people who disagree with that lifestyle to agree with, accept, or cater to those with 'alternative lifestyles' feelings and desires. Right now in your state there doesn't seem to be laws doing that, just the opposite actually. But there is political, economic, financial, and social coercion going on.

My friend, and I can be friends with anyone who is not trying to impose their beliefs and opinions on me, I am libertarian in my political beliefs. One of the main tenets of what I believe in is the "non-aggression" principle. The government should not be able to force anyone to do anything, it should only protect its citizen from the aggression and force of others.
The founders of this country knew that religion would be used as a means of bias and be biased against, that is why they the freedom to practice and express religious beliefs in the First Amendment of the Constitution. You don't have to accept/recognize my religious beliefs but you can't discriminate against them because they are constitutionally protected. So whoever is forcing Christian beliefs on you is wrong and you are wrong if you are participating and accepting it.
I believe in freedom of association, by that I mean that you or I or any business owner or employer should not have to associate with on any level other people that we do not want to. So an employer should not have to hire anyone he does not want to, ever potential hiree should be subjected to a contract listing requirements of employment and reasons for termination. If someone gets the job under false pretenses or commits a reason for termination, the employer should be able to fire them. One of the services of government in the libertarian view is for the courts to enforce the honoring of contracts between citizens.

The only things the First Amendment protects is the free practice and expression of religion. If an employer doesn't want to hire a Christian they shouldn't have to. They should be able to discriminate (make a choice or distinction) for any reason because it is their business.
When I say "discrimination" against Christianity I only mean it's free practice and expression. But not in the workplace because the employer's rights to hire whomever he wishes and fire whomever for whatever reason come first.

Are you very kind or are aware that it should apply across the board and every spectrum "discriminated against classes?" No one should have to interact with anyone they don't want to (that means hire, work for, supply goods and services to, etc.) I say let the free market put the real bigots out of business. Real bigots only want to serve or hire or work for people who are just like them in their own bigoted social sphere, not out of matters of conscience just pure hate and/or supremacy.

Have you ever heard of CRISPR? It can change any gene in your body.