I don’t know why you would limit the discussion to #1 when #2 is the only part that is really relevant to the topic at hand.
Assertion 1 is offered as evidence that TT wouldn’t need to actively suppress trans content for it to be unpopular. Perhaps that was unconvincing. I’d say you’re arguing a lot about specifics of terms to weasel out of accepting that some people don’t like trans people. The language argument is particularly weak in the way that arguments about word usage usually are. It is in fact quite common to use the language of “existence” when discussing gender/sex/orientation identity. Whether the physically don’t exist in a country, don’t exist as lgbt people, or don’t count as people at all: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/prominent-leader-chechnya-sa...
Okay, so if we're talking about murdering people because they are trans, that is what I'm talking about as not allowing them to exist. So let's look at the data. 33 gender-non-conforming people killed in 2021, by August, which we can extrapolate out to 50 for the year.
So, 50/19,000 means that 0.26% of murders are to gender-non-conforming people, which is less than the 0.6% of the US population which identifies as transgender. So the murders are literally under represented. And given that the murders are a broader category of gender-non-conforming, vs the 0.6% figure which is a subset that is specifically trans, the degree to which gender-non-conforming people are murdered as compared to the general population is even more under-represented.
So, no, trans people are not being prevented from existing in that capacity in the United States.
Now, in regards to not accepting people's identity, as I've already said...this is a completely different thing. If you take someone like JK Rowling, who is frequently labeled a TERF, then the criteria for "not allowing trans people to exist" is literally predicated on the existence of somebody who says that biological women exist as a valid category that is distinct from trans women. That is what JK Rowling says. She doesn't say trans people don't exist. She doesn't say that trans identities aren't valid, or that she wouldn't treat a trans person by the gender they identify with. She just says that a biological woman is a valid categorization. Now, of course there are people that don't accept that trans people's identities are what they say they are, but again, this also includes a good deal of semantic disagreement.
When a trans woman asserts "I am a woman," and somebody else says "no you're not," there is quite a bit of semantic warfare going on in that disagreement. The trans woman is saying, "I am a woman, which I mean to say that my gender is woman, which I mean to say is that my gender identity is woman, and therefore I am a woman." The critic says "no, you are not a woman, which I mean to say that your sex is not a woman." Again, this is not denying their right to exist, this is functionally a semantic argument. Freedom to exist does not mean that everyone in the society accepts the identity you put forth, and this isn't just limited to gender issues.
Assertion 1 is offered as evidence that TT wouldn’t need to actively suppress trans content for it to be unpopular. Perhaps that was unconvincing. I’d say you’re arguing a lot about specifics of terms to weasel out of accepting that some people don’t like trans people. The language argument is particularly weak in the way that arguments about word usage usually are. It is in fact quite common to use the language of “existence” when discussing gender/sex/orientation identity. Whether the physically don’t exist in a country, don’t exist as lgbt people, or don’t count as people at all: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/prominent-leader-chechnya-sa...
Stronger evidence for the claim that some people don’t like or want to accept trans people’s identity: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF
Some people would actually murder other people because they say they are trans: https://www.hrc.org/resources/fatal-violence-against-the-tra...