@Scarf/Swiftsign - here's the way I see it. There are two ways people fight for equal rights: there is the way SwiftSign fights, which is essentially a results-based strategy where we do what needs to be done to get the rights for everybody as quickly as we can. This is my attitude as well; I can see that society is only just becoming OK with gay people and I can see things happening which will in the end result in everybody getting equal rights (including trans people, since the rights gay people get could only logically be extrapolated to them). The good part about this type of fighting is that it's safe. We're not rocking the boat; we're doing what we have to do and it's fairly likely that one way or the other, in the end it's going to run smoothly. The bad part about it is that it could be seen as 'settling' for less than the community as a whole deserves because while everybody shares in the equal rights, it's only the gay people that get to experience the shift in public attitude that comes along with it.
Then there's Scarf's way, which basically refuses to settle. It's a more indignant and aggressive approach which refuses to take anybody's crap and doesn't leave anybody behind. It's arguably the better and more noble way to think because after all, we all deserve equality and why should we have to follow what society thinks is right in order to achieve what is actually right? But the downside to it is that it is way more risky because if we come on too strong to the general public then we run the risk of alienating them, because trying to change their attitudes toward everything at once is more likely to spook them and get them off our side. In the end it's a choice between reality and idealism. Not everybody is willing to be enough of a risk-taker to adopt the ideal.