I've seen a couple of interviews where he talks about it but I think he is only aware of the issue on a very surface level as he seems to only regurgitate the popular talking points. One being that people need to be free to express themselves as they wish, which I don't think anyone is arguing against, not seriously, the other is this somewhat naive view that the easy solution to the problem is to provide private unisex bathrooms, which indeed is a smart solution in certain contexts, new buildings probably will be smart to have a kind of all purpose handicap/changing table/gender non-conforming room for people who otherwise can't use the regular bathroom. But that doesn't fix the problems of people feeling entitled to go into restrooms where they make the intended occupants uncomfortable, nor does it fix the sports cheating problem, not does it begin to address the issues behind what appears to be a mass sterilization programme of the "feeble minded" at massive profits to the medical industry.

We have some historical reason to be worried about this, eugenics as a movement has enforced involuntary sterilizations of those deemed unfit for breeding in the past. You saw that sort of thing in native populations for example, beyond the standards of physical or mental abnormalities. I say there is truth to the idea of "trans genocide" in so far as sterilization of a group amounts to genocide. Yet in this case it appears that they're getting them to agree that they need to be sterilized or else they will kill themselves rather than doing it in secret and not telling them as was done in the past.

I think for the most part it betrays an unwillingness of people in public to breach unpleasant topics. Consider it a sort of toxic positivity if you will. I think people in science fields are highly susceptible to it as they attempt to counter the more luddite ideas from the popular culture.

I think in the larger contexts of the new atheist movement they made similar mistakes as the communists made during the revolutions of the earlier 20th centuries. While the church is certainly not above criticism, they seem to have blamed the whole of humanities problems on religious beliefs. This ides that the only reason humans are killing each other in wars is because their gods are different. Which I find laughably naive. I reckon some of what we are seeing now comes from an outright rejection not merely of the ideals of religion but an unfamiliarity with religious teaching as they pertain to myths legends and the kind of roundabout way that these stories provide a kind of wisdom of how humans relate to each other and the world, I think the scientists often times get too hung up on the literal viability of such myth and miss that the point of any is to provide some kind of moral teaching.

We had this problem with the creationism vs evolution debates, the hardline creationists failed to understand the material necessity of scientific observation to come from an observation to conclusion route rather than trying to piecemeal the evidence into their pre-conceived model, but the evolutionary side as well failed to see how in their own circles orthodoxy can produce similar if as of yet less pronounced results. I also think that while a materialist outlook is necessary in any sort of physical sciences, it's extremely foolish to disregard religion as having "nothing to it" or being utterly old fashioned. It shows a lack of familiarity with history, or even with the world as it is. There may indeed be no material cause by which we can point and prove the existence of god. Yet we see religions form and influence populations and societies all throughout history. There is some power there. Anyone who has been successful in politics understands that. Look even at the supposedly atheist communist regimes of the 20th century and see them create new pantheons surrounding their revolutionary leaders. The giant statues of the Kim dynasty for example. Hell you could even go back to the American revolution and see a similar form of deification taking place. They carved the faces of their presidents into some mountain in the middle of nowhere. And people go and make pilgrimages to it.

It can perhaps be argued that man makes his own gods, but can we not also argue that a good given power by men can wield the power given over men? Even if the god itself is not real, does that mean it's power is not real if the people believe in it?