Mark is using a fallacy known as slippery slope. His claims aren't a direct result from the law but that the law will lead to other laws that he doesn't like. While you can point to potential causations as reason to not want the law, it is up to you to actually support the claim in other than "link spam" or various fallacies.
This is an tactic seen by trolls who don't actually have anything valid to say but don't like something because it goes against their beliefs.
Brianna's fallacies are
1) Appeal to Novelty. That the year is 2016 doesn't matter, it doesn't even matter that you are getting support. It is JUST AS PROGRESSIVE to enforce laws that were lax as it is to repeal them, you only agree with one but do not see the downsides and refuse to acknowledge that the choice to segregate restrooms was made and has to be dealt with first rather than later.
2) Appeal to emotion: It isn't anti-transsexual. It's anti-transsexual agenda. If you don't support abortion rights, you aren't anti-woman, you're anti-abortion! Your AGENDA is not who you are, by saying we're oppressing you by opposing your agenda you're making this into a pathos argument rather than one about bathrooms.
3) More appeals to emotion: The bill simply enforces what was originally common courtesy. A distinction has to be made, your "gender" cannot be proven but your "biological sex" can be. It doesn't matter that the LGBT agenda has pushed the lie that people identify by gender, YOU identify by gender OTHERS don't. The will of what the MAJORITY desires is "democracy" the minority oppressing the majority is "tyranny".
4) Blatant dismissal of fears using strawman arguments. You don't speak for every trans person, and even though trans people are going to be the SMALLEST population of people affected by this, it makes it easier for non-trans to pretend to be trans and do all the nasty things women believe they're going to do. This doesn't mean it WILL happen, but just that you're ignoring the reason why people oppose it and trying to ridicule it when jessica is oh so willing to show that it IS a problem for gender-typicals.
I say and say again, this has always been a fight for unisex bathrooms. Until you acknowledge EXACTLY what you're proposing as being unenforceable without turning restrooms unisex, you are blindly screaming "oppression" when the reality is that you're the oppressors.
Yep, and jessica is using the fallacy of bandwagoning, appeal to authority, and "Pity me because I'm too stupid to understand the difference between making my own argument with my own words and posting dozens of links which I only read the title of and considering my argument made while IGNORING any attempt to dispute the claims other than to say you're a troll, you're allowed to stop lying, or other phrases that don't address the points made and only serve to make me feel better and allow me to continue spreading my heterophobic hate speech"
Actually, I sound educated because I am, I read your articles and try presenting point as to why they're incorrect. Your responses never vary other than to say that I cannot argue my own points, I NEED to appeal to authority or you won't accept them. That is hardly the mark of the educated person Jessica, and it is obvious you only repeat what you're told rather than attempt to understand it so you can handle being put under the pressure I can put you under.