The argument is: "I don't need you believe my false claim to be something I am not for me to obtain the power to force you to act as if it were true, which has always been, and remains, the goal," which has always been true. It's just that some kind of emollient rhetorical circumlocution is necessary for now.

Pluralism means that some people are free to believe that feeling like a woman is what makes you a woman and other people are free to reject this belief. That belief does not confer any right on a person who holds it and does not impose a duty on any other person to share it. Agencies of the state have no business forcing anyone to share such a belief, teaching it to children in school as fact, or conferring a special privilege to bearers of that belief to violate sex-based boundaries or to coerce others into paying obeisance to those beliefs. When people speak of "trans rights" they are always, without exception, speaking of such special privileges, (to enter women's bathrooms, changing rooms, shelters, prisons, and sports; to force people to refer to them by preferred pronouns, to have the state falsify their official documents in deference to their belief that feeling like a woman is what makes someone a woman, to have a legally enforceable right to enter lesbian speed dating events that no event organizer can deny except at risk of legal penalty) granted on the basis of that claim, and though Cassie is trying to appropriate the language of pluralism, he is speaking of such special privileges too, when he speaks of "rights." That is to say that while claiming to uphold liberalism and pluralism and freedom of conscience, he is in fact seeking to eradicate it for all unbelievers in the false claim that feeling like a woman is what makes someone a woman. His novel move, which impresses folx who are desperate to grant every trans rights demand (essentially all of which have already been granted by every Blue state and city, with some degree of rollback in Red states) while enacting a charade of moderation and reasonableness, is just to say "it doesn't really matter whether my belief system is true, so long as all my demands are granted." The article was written in a way that will attract criticism from trans activists, who are wedding to forcing people to believe the false dogma at the heart of the movement, and also from from unbelievers of trans dogma, who recognize that it seeks the entire package of trans privileges nonetheless, without any grounding in belief -- thus framing itself as a form of "moderation." It's a clever rhetorical strategy, but basically empty filibustering, which is all that Democrats want to do until such time as they regain power and impose the entire package of mandates through state power.

To recap: -- Colorado passed a law that makes it easier for convicted sex offenders to change their names legally -- Two speakers gave a public testimony in opposition to that law and used accurate, sex-based language to refer to a man who claims to be a woman. --The legislature interrupted and silenced them and struck their remarks from the record -- The Institute for Free Speech is seeking review by the Supreme Court of the lawsuit that emerged from this exchange. As I've repeatedly pointed out, "misgendering" is the foundational civil right. If you cannot refer to a material fact about a person, you are not free.

It’s always fine to make an accurate reference to a person’s sex. It’s never fine to throw a tantrum in response to a person making an accurate reference to a person’s sex. It’s always wrong for public authority to abridge anyone’s right to free speech.