I think you’ve tackled the titular question beautifully, and I like the inclusion of TERFism and other radical gender-related ideologies under your evolved definition, as it flips the script in a really important way. In a sense, you’ve reworked a potential dog whistle into language we can functionally use to include the dog whistler. In my opinion, that presents an advancement in pro-trans discourse against overt bigots.

But as you allude to - how do we presently respond when use of the phrase “gender ideology” is in earnest and isn’t inflammatory or intentionally bigoted? What about when someone actually has qualms with how an ideology is being discussed? What about when that person has purported to be harmed by some of the more careless implimentations of that ideology (ie, detransitioners)? The line gets real blurry real fast.

How do folks respond, in essence, when a dog whistle isn’t being heard by the person accidentally blowing it? Currently, getting piled on under the assumption that the dog whistle was intentional is typically how discourse moves forward, ultimately pushing people away from valid discussions. This intensifies the younger the audience of the media is — TikTok, for instance, is a place often free of any nuance whatsoever when it comes to these discussions.

And it’s not like we need to resort to evidence-flimsy arguments. We have science and most of the scientific community on our side.

When people defend transness in ways that are more based in ideology, idealism, or feelings rather than human impact or scientific objective truths, things can get messy and politicized and reminds me much of the early days of Tumblr. People spent so much effort on that platform trying to convince TERFs that neopronouns are valid, which was an incredible waste of resources given that TERFs are very "rubber" while our community is very "glue." It's a bad idea to play metaphorical ideological racket ball with a TERF when your workout gear is made of velcro.

I don't think it's necessary to convince someone that my existence is personally relatable to get them to view trans people from a more humanistic lens. I don't need cis people to relate to me - I merely need/want them to be unsurprised and unbothered by my presence in shared spaces. I don't particularly care if they get the nuance between "born as a man" and "born trans" and “I’ve been a man/woman for X days now” discourse, you know what I mean? Getting hung up on the semantics of the issue is too easy and tends to derail any productive discussion that might be had.

There are discussions I love having with other trans people that I don’t think your average cis person is ready for or has any business being involved in. The general cis population’s perspective on transness is elementary, if not infantile. We need to educate people as such and reserve advanced discussions for those who can engage with or argue against those ideologies effectively. While someone’s knowledge may be elementary, we need to communicate id with those folks in ways that aren’t pedantic or patronizing if we intend for that knowledge to sink in.

So, did we go too hard too fast with trying to educate the public? Probably. I think it was done in earnest, but the result is the result. Tumblr and other social media helped open up trans discourse but a disgruntled, younger trans population handled it like war, and now it’s on level-headed trans people to pick up the pieces and reframe how the discussion plays out in the future without, you know, being all Tumblr about it.

And that's it, isn't it? There's Tumblr-era trans-related "Gender Ideology," and then there's modern trans discourse. We want to focus on the latter, particularly given that "discourse" is a neutral term for most people, while perception of the word "ideology" tends to skew more negative.