There are quite a few trans activists working against this outbreak of anti-trans legislation. They aren't as well known as they should be, but their work is outstanding.
One such person is Erin Reed, an independent reporter who has been following anti-trans legislation around the country via her substack and Twitter address. She also breaks down the deliberate inaccuracies pushed against the trans community by the anti-LGBTQ industry.
Such as the false claim that 80% of trans youth detransition:
One of the most common myths heard in anti-trans hearings is that most trans kids will desist if they are allowed to go through puberty. Sometimes specific numbers are given, such as 80% of trans kids desist. This statistic has been cited as low as 60% and as high as 99% in various legislatures. In Montana, a representative used this statistic to justify passing a medical ban. The Heritage Foundation has also pushed this myth. Nearly every hearing on this topic includes this myth. The desistance myth is one of the most persistent falsehoods and has been used against the trans community for decades. It is misleading and inaccurate as it comes from outdated DSM-4 criteria and decades-old data. Newer studies show that 97.5% of transgender youth are persistent in their gender identities. Let's examine how this falsehood originated, how it is misused, and what current research reveals about the rarity of desistence and detransition.
Erin not only examines the lie but also points out how those on the right amplify the claim by using old studies which use outdated standards. Her entire post is worth a read and a share:
Among trans youth, desistance and detransition rates are incredibly low. The most recent study in the prestigious journal Pediatrics, one of the only studies that use modern criteria, showed that 97.5% of trans youth continue to identify as trans on a 5 year follow-up. The sample size was also larger than all previous sample sizes of this population: 317 youth. Anti-trans gender affirming care bans often start off with a list of “legislative findings” that seek to “state the science” around gender affirming care. In this list of findings, you might be surprised to see that the later studies are nowhere to be found, but the claims from the former studies pop up and are presented as factual when they are over a decade old, are dramatically outdated, and use standards that are not even in use anymore.