The idea that what we really need to do is stop using a trans interpretive framework for trans-coded behavior seems like the wrong direction, people are already being denied that trans interpretation by everyone else in society.

I get what you are saying, but when one defines or perceives actions of gender non-conformity as being "trans-coded behavior" it validates and strengthens gender stereotypes, and undermines efforts to break down gender stereotypes. Gender stereotypes which do indeed hurt the trans community, as this view often can turn on them very quickly. I'm not a fan of promoting gender stereotypes as something "trans friendly" which is what the idea that they are "trans-coded behavior" does. It makes them more valid than they are or should be. That's why, like I said, the overlapping area of the venn diagram should be treated as a hazard zone.

I guess I am worried here that an extreme over-application of the egg prime directive would result in trans people being punished for their trans perspective and potentially reasonable interpretations, even if we agree that they really shouldn't be projecting those things onto others.

Honestly I think that might be a real concern and ultimately some very well might be. However in a lot of ways many already are. People who express transmedicalist beliefs are often barred from many trans communities and spaces, and this one isn't an exception. People who express misogyny or transmisogyny as a form of gross euphoria, or 'ewwphoria' as it's known colloquially, find themsleves excluded from spaces, again, this one isn't an exception either. It is unfortunate that people who might very well need support just as much as the others are punished for their own views. However, in these cases they are expressing sentiment and behavior that is harmful to the others. Ultimately a line must be drawn to protect those who are vulnerable, and the moment others start getting hurt is where the hammer comes down.

Frankly we need less gender stereotypes in the world, not more of them.

I'm just not sure we can avoid that people see things in patterns and use generalizations - it makes communication more efficient and feasible even if it can be damaging at times. I guess my point is that we can't take extreme positions on either side - we can't and shouldn't eliminate stereotypes entirely, even if stereotyping can obviously be problematic and damaging.

I'm in agreement we can't eliminate stereotypes entirely, but I do think efforts to eliminate gender stereotypes are noble and should continue. Ultimately gender stereotypes heavily restrict the way people are allowed to present themselves, and as I already said do bite trans people in the ass too. We might not be able to escape all stereotypes, but we should try to cut back on or eliminate the most harmful ones.

Sure, it might be rude or toxic to repeatedly and directly override their self-identity as straight, but it also wouldn't be entirely right to deny their gayness either or to censor people who are engaging in any discussion that tries to help them see how they might be gay, etc.

Actually I see this as just as problematic as egg culture in general. What you speak of is indeed very toxic and can be deeply hurtful to the people non the receiving end. The nail in the coffin being that it was the driving force behind a lot of biphobic sentiment in LGBTQ spaces, saying that Bi people are just gay-in-denial. Actually as an Ace person who used to participate in general LGBTQ communities I personally experienced some of this with people saying I'm a "Celibate" and gay-in-denial. It didn't last, I told them to fuck off, but still that IS toxic. I've seen very similar fallout in egg communities with Nonbinary and Genderfluid people being casualties, in addition to people who are just Gender Non-conforming.

So while it is important to help people come out, it needs to be done in a way that isn't hurtful, or worse, discriminatory. Enbyphobia and Biphobia are very often byproducts of this type of overzealous cracking.

My partner could not force me to identify as trans and it wouldn't be right for them to coerce me to help see that I was trans, even if I did have a kind of duty to not harm which I was doing by being in denial. It's messy, not clean-cut.

I agree, real life is messy and not always clear cut. Which is a big part of why the egg prime directive exists. To stop it from getting even messier. Everything is a tradeoff ultimately, the question is whether the drawbacks are worth the gain. I and many others seem to think that the egg prime directive offers gains by making people feel safer to express themselves without having to worry about their identity being debated or challenged by others. Not everyone will agree of course but you can't win them all unfortunately.