They hold extremely rigid, essentialist and binary worldviews. So when someone comes along and challenges that worldview they can either change their entire worldview… or deny it and get rid of the contradiction.

You exist in a manner that’s inconvenient to their politics and they would sooner you stop existing than their politics change.

While I don’t believe there’s any possibility of holding a rational discussion about this, I’ll bite. There will never be a universal solution to man’s inability to perceive some as others. There will always be homophobia, terfs, racists, etc. our internal worldview will always be rigid, unless there is a significant event to alter that view.

J.K. Rowling is a prime, and recent example. Instead of rationally responding to her concerns of diminishing attention being paid to women’s issues, we paint her as a terf and froth at the mouth for her cancellation. Her opinions are inconvenient, and we’d much rather she keep them private, than endure a contradiction to our worldview.

Kyle Rittenhouse ostensibly went to a protest to attempt to provide aid, and possibly protect property. While it’s clear he had an ulterior motive, he did not assault or threaten anyone until personally attacked. Yet we’d have much rather seen him arrested for murder and locked away. His view that personal property, whether yours or someone else’s, is worth fighting for is inconvenient, and contradicts our worldview.

I truly believe that most conservatives are exploiting the worst sides of our society for personal gain, but the worst sides of our society are poor, poorly educated, and have almost no access to mental health care. They’re fed a constant stream of hate through the media of their choosing, and exist largely in a social bubble. Modern algorithms provide almost no possibility that they will see a logical argument that can challenge their world views. How is that any different than the situation most POC are in right now? I realize that you’ll immediately point out the systemic issues POC have and will continue to experience, and I don’t disagree with you. But the similarities are still there. Poor, poorly educated people with mental illnesses will believe in simplistic absolute solutions, regardless of the relevancy of their ideas.

Logically speaking, a trans woman will have a biological difference to a cisgender woman. But to even suggest that leads to an immediate dismissal of the idea. How is that any less rigid?