"It’s making a mountain out of a mole hill. Fixing the tech won’t do anything to prevent anyone desiring trans people to be passing."
I think that's a fairly short term attitude. If we're playing the long game, I'd take every win possible. They add up over time.
"Even cis-people appear to demand this. Take Rachel Levine, for example, most of the jokes made at her and trans people expense is that she’s still too manish."
I think that's what people think when they see her. But over time (there I go again) people will become used to people being themselves and appearance will matter less. It may take a long time, but that is the general arc, imo.
"This is actually what encourages passing and the need for transpeople to transition before and during puberty."
Negative. There's absolutely zero need for anyone to transition before puberty. We don't let people drive a car before puberty (well...) but we're going to let them change their sex? That's just nuts. It's actually abuse, imo.
"I understand the reservations of making a child/parent decide when transitioning is appropriate for a pubescent-age teen."
IF a parent and a child decide this together, I would give it more credence. However, there are plenty of folks in that movement who are substantially more radical and would freeze the parents out.
"But I’m also firmly against the government being used to restrict access to that opportunity."
I'm usually against the govt being involved in anything unless absolutely necessary. If it wants to make it possible for this to happen, then that goes along with my belief that the govt's role should be in making the playing field free and equitable. But once the govt actually gets involved in things they shouldn't (i.e. the process) that's when I get worried. And leave tax dollars out of it. Nothing gets people who are against something more riled up than when the govt decides to spend those peoples' money on things they're against.
I agree 100% with the rest of what you said.