Since I clarified that this wasn't my stance already I don't see the issue.
Where did you clarify that this wasn't your stance? You haven't retracted the claim of neutrality nor have you spoken any further on the attempted equivalence.
Loopholes in laws protecting transpeople are loopholes in generally applicable laws. The correct solution, even to protect transpeople, is to fix the general law.
Which laws are you referring to? What happens when administrations roll back protections specifically for groups that you are defining as arbitrary? Furthermore, this undermines your claim that they are arbitrary, because they are both nationally and internationally-recognised as a specific minority, as determined by a leading Western government singling them out as a target. There's nothing arbitrary about that.
There's technically nothing stopping you, no. It just means your argument contradicts itself as a consequence.
Quoted is a false assertion even at face value.
Why is it false? Are you willing to explain the flaw with the argument? If you do not concern yourself with a specific minority, how can you be expected to understand the problems that minority faces? How can you understand what needs improving or reforming under current law? Is there a definition of "not concerning yourself with minorities" I am unaware of? "arbitrary subgroups" being your label for named and recognised minorities, and your label alone.
While questioning understanding rather than arguments made is yet more weak ad hominem (more of which I skipped because it's worth nobody's time), it's worth quoting this to point out that there actually is no knowledge prerequisite for posting in this thread, other than the English language and forum rules.
Calling things you don't like ad hominem is not an argument, and even if you wanted to spend another post explaining how it is allegedly a valid ad hominem, using it as pretext to not engage with the greater point being made is the fallacy fallacy. I was trying to explain to you that knowledge is required for discussion to be constructive. You cannot be forced to have this knowledge, naturally, but in posting within the rules, some knowledge is at least required (my aim was never backseat moderation. I was being a bit vague with my language as to directly avoid that, as per Lemon's later post. I want to see this discussion kept going). Otherwise the discussion by its very nature becomes less informed, and thus less constructive.
Your understanding relates to the arguments you are making. Your arguments are poor because they do not reflect an accurate understanding of trans people (nevermind other minorities) in the United States or even other modern first-world nations (like the UK). You claim that a discussion of transphobia is allegedly only personal to JK Rowling, which is worrying because it demonstrates you see no significance in a thread debating a specific group of peoples' rights, in a thread where people of that group exist.
To put it another way, you repeatedly call fallacy whenever you think something is directed at you personally, but you cannot understand that discussing a subject which is part of at least one poster's actual lived experience is not also personal. This is a failing in any argument you put forward on the subject.
None of this is neutral, to go back to the start - to go back to an actual argument. Every opinion here has weight. The decision to support trans rights is binary, because you either support them, or you don't. There's nuance
after that fact, for sure. But the initial support / do not support is a binary. There is no neutral stance in that. If someone doesn't care about trans rights, or doesn't concern themselves with trans rights (regardless of how you go about it, or prefer to word it), they do not support trans rights.
If you support rights for all people and include trans people in that statement, as you have said, then congratulations. Your opinion is not neutral. It is, at least by what you've said, in favour of trans rights (and also, notably, opposed to Rowling's own stance on the subject). Anything else is just tedious semantics. If we all agree here that trans rights deserve our support, then the best way forward would be to reply to my second paragraph (and ignore as much of the rest as you prefer), and talk in real terms of the work needing to be done.