Broadly speaking, these are people who have not quite grasped the purpose of employment.
Namely:
- At an individual level, you are exchanging your time and productivity for money, as per the terms of your employment contract. You are getting the benefit of being paid; that means you must give your employer the benefit of X hours' per day/week/month/year of productive labour. This means you should not behave in a way or spend work time on things which reduces the value of your labour or other people's labour to your employer.
- At a societal level, we need most working age adults to be exchanging some sort of productive labour for payment, because this is what keeps the wheels on the economy turning. Without it we would have no goods, services or public infrastructure. This means that as many working age adults as possible need to be able and willing to work, which means that some of them may need special accommodations to facilitate their inclusion.
Things like maternity and paternity leave may cost the business money, but they open up the workforce to people who might otherwise not work, and facilitate the existence of the next generation. Providing a room for your staff to use for prayer and allowing some people to use it multiple times per day may cost the business money, but it facilitates the employment of people with strong religious beliefs, who have something to contribute to the business and to wider society. Accessible toilets and other accommodations for disabled people cost money, but allow disabled people to make a productive contribution instead of sitting at home on benefits when they don't need or want to do that.
So the basic rule is that being employed is about giving your employer maximum productivity in exchange for pay. The basic rule is qualified by the fact that sometimes a loss of productivity or an additional business expense is offset by the overall societal benefit of promoting the inclusion of certain groups of people.
But when it comes to gender identity, it's more difficult to make the case for that societal benefit.
A transgender person who doesn't make any particular demands beyond having preferred pronouns, who quietly uses unisex or accessible toilets without making a fuss, and who doesn't constantly talk about their gender identity or take offence at minor things such as "misgendering" and make everyone tread on eggshells, is most likely as productive as anyone else in the workplace. Even if they take a small amount of time away from the regular activities they are employed to do in order to, for example, sit on a DEI committee, that minor loss of productivity may be justified on the "wider societal benefit" grounds.
On the other hand, people who waste five to ten minutes at the start of every meeting asking everyone to state their pronouns, who take offence at even the most minor perceived "thought crime", who constantly accuse others of "transphobia" over minor issues, who disregard other people's rights to single sex toilets and changing rooms, who expose the business to legal risk by applying Stonewall law rather than the actual law, who stir up division and conflict and make the workplace a hostile environment for people who do not pretend to believe that humans can change sex... Well, these specific behaviours affect both their own and others' productivity, cause low morale, increase staff turnover and generally cause time and resources to be dedicated to dealing with gender issues rather than productive work. And during the rest of the time, when they are supposedly getting on with the actual fucking work they are paid to do, I think it can reasonably be inferred that they are not the best at that either.
Ultimately their actions are detrimental to their employers and to wider society, and particularly harmful to perfectly pleasant, hard working trans people who just want to turn up and do a good job. Because they are responsible for the growing "if I see a CV with pronouns on it I put it straight in the bin" attitude that we see more and more frequently.
It's not that all trans people and their allies are tedious time wasters who do nothing but cause division and conflict in a professional environment. It's just that enough of them are that employing them is now seen as a business risk.