Nobody. Canadians are worried about a good old fascist... I mean fashioned war war.
Drivebyhaiku
I am less shocked and more resigned. Been tracking the progress of the Republican party over a decade now and watching them throw out euphemism after euphemism as they just aren't needed anymore. What the reaction of shock got us back then was "alarmist" since the Conservative playbook was so layered up in dogwhistles the average person thought it was tinfoil hat fodder.
The base was being groomed to accept this as an outcome and so they were slow boiled. It was that way for the Nazis too. Each terrible move wasn't quick it was the next horrible logical conclusion of their worldview of removing the "useless" aspects of humanity. They started first in government services and then with eugenics in mental health care while dismantling queer infrastructure in cities under the same eugenics line citing them as non-reproductive genetic dead ends. Then it turned to homelessness. Then as their policies created more "useless" classes of people in the form of minorities who could not legally work because of the laws they passed they turned to liquidation of those groups. Each step was followed by a pause to make the rhetoric more callus to build off the basic premise that as an able-bodied, regularly employed, sane, cishet, white, Christian / atheist that your resources were personally being stolen from you to feed the "undeserving".
How far back can you remember Republicans on their soap box about people being undeserving of assistance or support? About people being a waste of resources or campaigning to make those people easier to stigmatize? It shouldn't be surprising after over a decade that they've been dropping the mask.
Honestly a lot of news doesn't actually cover this stuff as it should. Covering trans topics is usually something that causes backlash or requires a high degree of finesse in reporting and explaining so these modern lynchings go largely uncovered by the big mainstreamers except when they think they have a winner that's straightforward enough to report in a short quippy segment.
Who the hell says "transsexuals" anymore except folk who were out in the 90's?
If you would like to read some articles how about Forbes?
NBC?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna125783
Congress? Bonus points they give you the stories of a bunch of the victims.
https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/117016/documents/HMKP-118-JU00-20240321-SD015.pdf
How about a long term view over ten years? Statista
https://www.statista.com/statistics/944726/murders-transgender-gender-diverse-people-us/
And these are the murders we know. They are difficult to find because a lot of coverage buries the lead on the trans nature of the victims so we only learn about them being trans after the fact. A lot of newspapers use dead names and pre transition photos and don't mention current names and identities so in some of our communities we only know when someone has died except through word of mouth because when they show up in the paper they aren't recognizable. This is also why articles tend to use the words "at least" or have inconsistent counts per year. New ones are always coming to light as friends and family struggle to get the word out.
You do not see these news articles because your news silo filters them out. There are vigils every year where the names are read out. The circumstances of those vigils are that the main reason for the violence was because of the victims gender identity. You asked for sources. Have at em.
While I don't doubt your stance comes from a history of trauma, policing any kind of identity in this way causes real trauma to others. It causes a pervasive sense of isolation that is antithetical to feeling supported and secure and puts a check on a person's ability to participate in their culture. Your lack of comfort does not mend leveling the playing field of stripping away the comfort of others if it is being expressed peacefully.
Bans also very become a very fuzzy line. Most holidays are based off of religious festivals that are widely participated in by the secular and non-secular alike. Once someone starts making exceptions because a wide number of people like a specific one you start creating an artificial canon where minority cultures are oppressed while a narrative of "dominant culture" is allowed giving certain religious traditions cultural supremacy. For example people inside the Church have been trying to get rid of the multitude of pagan festivals that were rebranded as Christmas for eons. They ended up just rubber stamping it because taking away something beloved doesn't go well. In a modern context you could try and rebrand Christmas to a non-religious holiday... But good luck. It's layers of Christian over Pagan imagery and traditions fused into a gastalt religious melange. Any governing body that has tried to get rid of it before has spectacularly failed and leaving it be would quickly become a symbol to people who come from places with different dominant partially seclarized religious traditions that they remain cultural outsiders who don't have the nessisary concensus to participate in public. It would translate directly into supremacy narratives.
It's healthier for a society by far not to police the range of peaceful human expression and connection. People deserve to see themselves represented and connect with each other without needing to act like undercover spies in hostile territory.