freedom of speech and argumenting

I do enjoy freedom of speech, but it can't be absolute. Even if I were fine with absolute freedom of speech, it would not work on a social scale.
Some people are more gullible to misinformation or someone who promotes outrage to cause havoc. Some people can't ignore personal attacks, which can be mentally harmful.

This one opinion I have is definitely controversial if I don't phrase it right.
As an extreme example, it's not inherently illegal to be transphobic, but it's largely agreed that everyone should be treated equally. I believe anyone should be allowed to express even "wrong" opinions. As long as it's done in a respective manner. I want to be clear that having an opinion does not justify discrimination.

People often refuse to listen to anything that challenges their views. If you dissect the opposing opinion, you should strive to explain why you disagree with it. Explain why it is unhealthy from your perspective, whether it's societal, individual, or some other lens that you are viewing through.

In this instance, gender affirming care is very nuanced, and people are often misinformed about it. I have heard people claiming them to be harmful without acknowledging the details, such as that it is handled with the help of professionals who figure out the best solution for any given individual. Yes, there's valid criticism to be made on how some facilities handle transition therapies, and they should be brought up and improved upon. Outright banning the therapy after one unsuccessful attempt is not the way to improve the system.

I'd encourage people to challenge opinions like this in a more constructive way rather than dismissing it as hate speech. People should point out what's wrong with the opinion and educate the misinformed. Though if the opinion is badly constructed and discriminative with malice, that should not be tolerated, but it's not always as black and white.

Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world, and it's far likelier that topics like these split into echo chambers, where either side refuses to listen to one and other.
If you can't make a constructive argument and straight up attack the person who you think is misinformed, this will only strengthen their views and discredit your message.
It's not only the people with "wrong" opinions that are at fault, but also the people who attempt to defend their "better" ideas with bad arguments.

It comes down to argument skills that many people lack. I can't tell if this isn't emphasized enough in education or if some people don't find this skill set important. Yet people continue making bad arguments.

The loudest and biggest controversies cause the most attraction, which leads to a twisted view of the topics. Commercial news and media are inherently bad at this, as their only goal is to maximize engagement, even if it meant promoting outrage and throwing it out of proportions.

---

With this text, I want people to acknowledge the importance of civil conversation, even if it ends in disagreement. People should take their time to understand why this opposing opinion even exists. Empathize with the reasoning, if there's no merit to the opinion at all, criticize it, explain the problem and strive to clear misinformation. This shouldn't be any single-person responsibility. I want to encourage critical thinking before people start making bad arguments.

Yes, in my subjective opinion, transphobia is absolutely wrong, but we should be allowed to talk about it. I don't agree with hate speech or discrimination, but anyone is allowed to tell me their opposing opinion, and I will challenge it in hopes that I can push the individual to educate themselves why it is a bad opinion.
But if they can't talk about it civilly, I'd ignore them.