I think I see some of the core of the disagreement. Taking a brief aside, how did gay marriage impose on 50% of the country. It meant that gay couples on average paid more taxes, received some new benefits, but overall probably a wash. What is the harm done to others by a gay couple being married? (honest question, I just don't see a downside). I understand that gay couples make some people uncomfortable, but why does it matter if they are married or not?
For trans people, I again see that some people are made uncomfortable, but is there harm done? Is it any different than people being uncomfortable when they see a mixed-race couple? Or when they see a naked black dude in locker room?
I do agree (and have mentioned before) that these issues become very tricky when applied to children. I am uneasy about all sorts of possible inappropriate parental influence on children, but at the same time I don't see an easy fix to that problem in general.
It imposed upon the country that they must accept and approve of gay marriage. (This was done not via legislation, but through courts. The consequences of this will be very painful as we go forward, eg look at the "cake baking" debate which shouldn't even be going on)
Now, despite polls, voting records show that even in California--LGBTQTTIP#? capital of the country--52% of Californians voted to ban it. The rest of the country is a little more right-leaning than Cali, and so I think it's a pretty safe bet to say ~50% are opposed to it.
Not that it matters, but I was actually pro gay marriage, or at least some sort of civil union equivalent. But the reality is that most voters are not, and now it's not enough that it be legal, but if you don't want to participate in the ceremony, we can legally force you to, because reasons. We've moved far past the debate of whether or not gays should be allowed to marry or at least have the same property rights/protections afforded to married couples, and gone to something that I would wager most gays actually were opposed to (I don't know any who supported the Obergefell decision, but I'm in a deep red state, and don't know many of them)
To link this back to the trans issue, it is an imposition on the majority, if we are going to demand not that they tolerate trans people--something most of us can agree on--but that they affirm them. It violates their rights as individuals, if you believe in rights. There is no way to separate the children issue either. It's already being taught in schools. So you have a situation where 1% of the population--by definition deviant--has control over what the children of the 99% are being taught, which is a ridiculous thought.
The fact that someone doesn't want to have sex with a man, no matter how much he calls himself a woman, and doesn't want anything to do with someone who would behave this way is now being defined as bigotry and equivocated with racists who were/are opposed to mixed race couples...
I want to take a stab at the entire dichotomy we're dancing around here... If being trans is a "lifestyle" like everyone claims homosexuality is today, then we can judge them (and homosexuals) without knowing them, because it is a behavior, and so neither is then analogous to "mixed race couples" or "racism" because racism is judging a person based on physical attributes, rather than behavior, but both of these are a behavior... If it is by birth, then it is still not analogous to mixed race couples, because again, someone wouldn't even know to judge you by it unless you act upon it, so it is therefore more analogous to pedophilia or depression which you wouldn't know someone suffered from unless they told you or acted upon it...
The entire discussion is framed poorly by the trans proponents, no matter how you look at it. They want to ignore any rational discussion, and trade such analysis for mere discussions of feelings and cries of "BIGOT!!"