This feels like a misrepresentation of views that I have spent multiple hours trying to unpack for you in this space.
“So what would you call the “but zer/zim’s feelings might get hurt” sole justification for state employees to on the down-low “teach” 8 and younger kids about gender fluidity?”
It’s simply teaching kids, “these people exist, you should be kind to people you may see as different from you.” No one is teaching kids sex positions.
And it’s hardly a “sole reason”. I also mentioned the fact that preliminary sexual education is what helps prevent things like “grooming” and “pedophilia”, helps develop more healthy empathy and perspective taking, helps curtail bullying, and better prepares children for the onset of puberty and the explicit images on the internet, which the average child is now being exposed to at just 9 years old. Add to that the fact that 27% of gays knew their preferences before they turned 10 years old, and the traditional messaging of “men love women, and women love men, and those are the only acceptable options” creates suffering for these individuals.
Unless you also support adding some “don’t say ‘mom and dad’, or any gender pronouns at all” laws to the books?
I could ask the same question: what would you call the “but teaching kids that gay people exist will result in grooming and pedophilia” sole justification for restricting speech and education in the classroom? I’m sure you’d say that was a bad faith question.
“Feelings are interior quadrant and isn’t gender fluidity by definition detached from physical reality? Would that make it 100% interior quadrant?”
Yes and no. The orientation itself is interior quadrant, while “the fact that these people exist” is objective UR and LR truth. It’s 1 out of 20 people, in fact!
And I think there are many people out there for whom this simple fact of existence makes them uncomfortable — just like desegregation made them uncomfortable just a couple decades ago.
You know, like religion, which is also entirely interior-focused. And yet we have laws that ensure the free practice of religion, without placing limits on what kinds of religion can be practiced. Any time we reference “Christians” as a group in political discussions, and the sorts of liberties we want to see extended to them, it’s no different than referencing “gays”. (Actually it’s not quite the same — there is far more objective data telling us that gay people are real, than there is data telling us that these belief-based realities are real.)
Or mental handicaps. Purely an “interior” problem, right? But a group we nonetheless find a way to systemically support nonetheless?
I want our kids to know that different types of people exist, and none of them should be pushed into our shadows — especially when those shadows are being imposed from the top-down by the state. I want my daughter to be able to talk freely to her best friend, who happens to have two moms. And I want her best friend to never feel shamed, explicitly or subtly, by her educational institution.
And enforcing “don’t say gay” laws in our schools, would be an effort to deliberately push her own family into the shadows. “We’re not allowed to talk about your family, but we can talk about everyone else’s.”
60 years ago, “parents rights” would mean not allowing black students into white schools. But racism is purely interior, right?
Question: do you feel like you are doing your best to actually understand the progressive point of view, as you are insisting I refuse to do?
Or are you simply honing in in the small part of my argument you want to disagree with, and ignoring everything else? Seems to be our regular dance 
I will once again state the obvious compromise — we agree not to teach sexually explicit biological realities to kids, but continue to teach inclusivity, compassion, and kindness to different types of people, including a basic acknowledgement that these people exist.
