they're trying to get equal rights (or in this case power) for people who already have those rights.

It's funny you should mention that. Allot of anti feminists see it as the other way around; that feminists are campaigning for equal rights for women despite them already being equal. Also, most people who espouse "heterosexual pride" or "cisgender pride" do it to troll social justice advocates (the logic being "Watch. They say I'm proud to be X, but if I say I'm proud to be Y, they'll get butthurt and call me 'Zist/phobic', blissfully unaware of the double standard they're espousing").

As an analogy, say that a poor person gets $1 every day for years and a rich person gets $20. Declaring that from now on, both of them should get $20 would be great, and appear like equality, but it wouldn't make up for those years that the poor person only got $1, twenty times less.

Should we privilege the former proletariats over the former bourgeoise and pay them an extra 20? Now, by this analagy, the former proletariot (now bourgeoise) gets paid $40 every month, and the former bourgeoise (now proletariats) gets paid only $20. You just created a wage gap in attempts to fix the damages of a wage gap. Do you think the new bourgeoise is going to let go of that edge over the new proletariats without a fight? This whole scenario has "disaster" written all over it.