The most persistent forms of bigotry/intolerance are the ones who aren’t as overt and comes in the form of microaggressions and exists when society excludes them from social and economic processes (think of Mr Norton from Invisible Man). It mentions in the video that some people, when confronted a subject of controversy like the existence of transgender individuals, may, with good intentions, respond with “I believe they can change their name, how they dress etc. etc. I think people should be allowed to do as they please with themselves.” In the video’s analysis, it calls out the fact that these statements are merely tolerant of transgender individuals and are just playing along. It’s like they’re talking about a child going through a dinosaur or a horse phase in that it is implied that the phase will “pass eventually”. This dismissal of what is a central part of a person’s identity is highly damaging and means that things like legislation which can help acknowledge the existence of such people aren’t being brought forward because their existence is denied by the legislative bodies.
Furthermore, the statement sounds patronizing. It doesn’t really matter if “you” believe because these people exist outside of what you believe. Your belief that they should be allowed to do what they wish implies that you have power to take away their freedoms as if their freedoms and rights aren’t guaranteed. Mostly, I get this feeling from the tone and context in which this statement is spoken in so this may not apply in all instances but my point still stands. The video goes into philosophy to help break down the arguments that ____phobes use to justify their views and actions and also goes into the more academic sides of such issues so if you’re interested, please watch this video in full: