I think maybe the dividing line is that gen X remembers real discrimination. We know how gays were opposed, we remember the resulting stigma of AIDS, and our mothers were the first generation to make mass inroads into the workplace as male peers, so we have that more common second-hand knowledge too.
People younger than us do not have any contemporary memory of real, direct, institutional discrimination, embedded into law. Gay rights was the last real battle.
So they find themselves fighting phantoms. And they have a desperation to latch onto any perceived new "civil rights" cause because they want to have one, like previous generations did.
They're looking for something new, which "trans rights" is, while not realising how recent and fragile the gains we've made are, and there's no interest in maintaining those (boring!). They can't even conceive that they might be undermining them. (And if they do, cool, cos they're tearing down the system!)
The rhetoric you here about how this is the same as the anti-gay movement rings totally false to me. I was straight, and young, so didn't directly affect me, but I remember the media + politics. The gay rights people were up there debating, and the opponents - mainly conservatives and religious - were struggling to make coherent arguments. But as long as all that was being demanded were the same rights as straight people had - hospital visiting rights (remember that - gay partners versus family?), inheritance, marriage - it was hard to justify saying no.
There were attempts to link to paedophilia, which were countered by removing the paedophiles from the movement. Not denying them, or attempting to undermine safeguarding, or insisting on a lower age of consent than heterosexuals because "man-boy love is important for gay people".
There was tabloid sensationalism/fearmongering. But it was irrational bluster with nothing actually behind it. And people could (eventually) see that. The more it was discussed the clearer it was that the anti-gay forces had no real arguments for denying the same rights straights had.
That fight was not carried out like this one. Because the LGB knew they were in the right. They had nothing to hide. They had no need for a Dentons report ("get back channels into government and use your mates there to smuggle changes in behind more popular legislation"). They didn't deny real issues - they addressed them. Then they got the public on side, and the government flipped when the public did.
And the certainly campaign wasn't top-down from government + companies! They just agreed when it was safe. Because there WAS real anti-gay sentiment in the public. There ISN'T any sort of remotely comparable anti-trans sentiment in the public, which is why organisations have no fear pushing this stuff (in vague "trans rights" terms, at least). The public doesn't have a problem with trans people in the way it used to have a problem with gay people. "Trans" wasn't remotely a public concern, until they started trying to erode women's rights. It's not a cultural issue, it's a rights issue. The push-back arises from the rights claims, as people find out what "trans rights" means.
What I don't get is people like Michael Cashman - he was joining in with Owen Jones the other day. Attached. JCJ surmises it's because he doesn't see women. Does he really think this is the same? "Dehumanisation?" Is he listening to us? At all?
I'd really want to see his arguments and views. How did he get there? He used to debate - I remember it. Why won't he now? I want to see him on TV, debating with someone like Julie Bindel or Helen Joyce, explaining why women can't have female-only sports, or giving us his views on the goings-on around the Tavistock. If he (or the rest of Stonewall) is not willing to defend his position, maybe we should just start ignoring them. They're not serious.
Oh, and check out JCJ's older piece:
Gay Rights and Trans Rights - A Compare and Contrast