That’s what “pride” is, a big fuck you we exist we’re proud of that and visible.

See the issue is you all look like humans to me. You can slice humanity up in any number of ways and can say "fuck you we exist" for a gazillion of characteristics or combinations thereof, one is ultimately as meaningless as the other. Individual people having identities, sure, that's perfectly warranted they're autonomous agents with their own properties but group identities? All you're doing there is prescribing behaviours to each other, denying both individualism and universalism.

Now you might not perceive it like that because all your perception is soaked to one half in "It is me who is perceiving this", i.e. the presence of a subject, and that subject gets all warm and fuzzy if there's others sharing a sufficiently close subjectivity giving you reason to immediately and unthinkingly compromise your own individuality but objectively, yep, prescribing behaviours to each other is what you're doing. It just so happens that you like it that way.

(It then shouldn't come as a surprise that there's no such thing as a schizophrenia-spectrum idpol movement. It'd be like cats trying to herd cats. We rather prefer to confuse the fuck out of each other when we meet by chance)

Also, not everyone wants to be visible, which is why I'm e.g. critical of establishing a cultural norm of having people state their pronouns when giving talks and whatnot. You have fluid people that are then forced to lock themselves into an identity which might change from making their slides to giving their talk to mingling after, you have people who'd rather be publicly closeted about being trans and force them to choose between outing themselves and publicly lying about themselves.

The whole thing would be easier if language wouldn't force us to choose a gender. There's plenty of language in which that's worse than in English, e.g. in Russian you can't talk about yourself in the past without choosing between male and female, but there's also plenty of language (but AFAIK not a single Indo-European one) in which it's possible to talk for ages about someone without once implying their gender, and that's the natural, idiomatic way to do things. As such: Why not get rid of he and she, everyone's a they? (which is what I actually meant the "everyone's a +" thing is merely structurally similar, but ultimately a different topic).

As to visibility: That's what the marches are for. What matters there is that a kid from a small village, completely alone in being member of a sexual minority and thus having issues finding connection and advise, can see that they're not alone. It allows both the kid and the rest of the village to say "yep that kid might be a rare breed, but nonetheless it's nothing out of the ordinary".

Who has the teeth to force its implementation?

If the government ignores courts then we're in a full-on constitutional crisis. Which wouldn't be unprecedented, mind you. Technically, then, Article 20 (4) applies:

All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order if no other remedy is available.

and that's what the RAF argued, and also what the Last Generation tends to argue, having an even stronger case than the RAF: In particular, there's already federal court judgements declaring that the government is ignoring its own climate laws, laws parliament was required to pass on order of the constitutional court. But using that as defence in criminal court has never, ever, worked. 20 years after, though, when perceptions have shifted it gives you the right to say "told you so" so there's that and it might very well play into parole hearings.

The courts, even if they de jure have the power (e.g. judgements of the constitutional court are immediately applicable law) tend to shy away from using it when they're of the opinion that parliament is the one who should do it -- that's a general thing, not specific to this situation. They issue "this half-sentence of the law shall not be applied until parliament comes up with a sane version of the law" type of orders. But that's because they're balancing their own powers, cognisant that they while judging in the name of the people, they're, well, unelected technocrats. But then the Berlin expropriation thing isn't an ordinary situation, the whole thing does already have democratic justification because it was a referendum, courts wouldn't be interfering in the process of formation of the political will of the people in this instance: They don't have to defer to parliament to not hurt democracy. As such it would kinda be a first but constitutional courts might just enact a full-on law directly and I have little doubt that the administration would apply it.

I mean it's not that Mao wasn't ultimately right about politics and cannons, however, not even the FDP would start a civil war over a couple of apartments.