I've been thinking a lot about what all this actually is, and I've come to the conclusion that what we are actually seeing, on a meta level, is that point of dislocation when a new technology, or a new technological advancement, enables people to change their behaviour, but society has not yet recognised the implications of that change in behaviour so cannot adequately police nor respond to it appropriately.
When people change their behaviour, and society has not yet realised the implications of that change in behaviour, then the dislocation creates a space that intersects with both the public and civic realms, yet is unpoliced or policed badly.
Fundamentally, this is what is happening now with the internet, digital communications and social media. A new public space has been created, yet is unpoliced or subject to policing guidelines that do not make sense within the territory (in this case, virtual), and society reacts to that space by employing historic attitudes that are misappropriate.
When it comes to the issue of gender ideology, I suspect we are largely in this situation because government and institutions treat the digital realm (particularly, twitter) as one giant focus group. They see twitter in particular as a "modern" version of their postbag or ward forum/constituency surgery, and assume that these policies are what their constituents and service users demand.
Added to this is that they cannot adequately identify the "green inkers" on digital media.
The only way to resolve this is to adapt and create policies that make sense within this new landscape. And that means changing law and policy.
Overall, the current law suits over gender ideology were inevitable. Institutions will have to shift and adapt, as well government. But for many people negatively affected by gender ideology, it will probably all come too late.