(Preface: sorry for the soapbox, but I have a hard time avoiding wordiness)
I absolutely agree that "frivolous distraction" suggests a speaker has not given any sincere thought to the actual impact of the issue. I don't know what was in Sorkin's head to utter something that insensitive, but I do think it important to distinguish between "frivolous" and "distraction." Trans issues are not frivolous in the slightest, and any suggestion they are shows the speaker does not believe that anyone they personally know and love is impacted by those issues. For those of us who actually care about inclusiveness, it is not at all a distraction, either, but an important issue to get educated about and support. However, the term "distraction" does apply To Conservatives,
in the context of recognizing that certain political players on the right have repeatedly and with malace picked out specifice social conservative hot-button issues to purposely whip up a furor among social conservatives, to use fabricated fear based scapegoat tactics as a cheap shot way to solidify support from that conservative demographic. It absolutely IS intended to distract the haters from policy issues that by all rights SHOULD be more important to THEM, such as economic policies that help only the mega-rich at the expense of many social conservatives.
Trans folks have had to wait an insuffrably long time for some moticum of visibility. Now that it is here, you are the target du jour for haters, who used to be content to endlessly bash gays but are now finding they often get uncomfortable pushback when they do (Thanks, Embassador Ellen!!)