Easy to grasp, maybe; to find, not so much. It was buried amid far too much condescension, insult and provocation, which I suspect is what most people took exception to (but I may be projecting there.)

Also, his thesis ignored the distinction between gender and sex, which is curious, because I suspect he is sufficiently familiar with foreign languages to be well aware of it. In a sense, one could argue the difference between APPEARANCE or USAGE and NATURE is exactly the difference. To take an example many Americans would recognize, "el pollo" is Spanish for "the chicken" and "la gallina" for "the hen." Of course, a hen is both a chicken and one of the female variety, but if one were to reference a hen generically in Spanish as a chicken it would NOT be correct to say, "la pollo," because the word "pollo" is NEVER of feminine gender even though hens are EXCLUSIVELY SO. By accident or design, the term transGENDER is precisely accurate.

Nah, everyone still has the right to be heard: Including those disgusted by some things they hear from some others. Likewise, everyone remains entitled to their own opinions and beliefs--which in no way precludes bigotry, something almost entirely a matter of opinion, often in defiance of fact. Simply disliking one INDIVIDUAL, or even several, does not prove bigotry (at least not beyond being a "Frankist")--but disliking ALL people with a certain attribute DOES prove one bigoted against that attribute. So does disliking all people with that attribute "except my [token] friend so-and-so; s/he is one of the good ones." Anyone who feels a group so CATEGORICALLY bad the "few" exceptions merit special notice simply for BEING exceptions to bigotry remains a bigot.

I am prescriptivist enough to dislike the term "-phobe" (although fear is a common cause of hatred, or hatred a common cloak for fear, if one prefers) but someone who "dislikes gays" (i.e. not a particular incidentally gay person disliked for something that particular person did, but ALL gays, even those of whose existence they are unaware) is definitely a "homoist." I DISAGREE with homosexuality, but neither fear nor hate homosexuals. Like all decent people, my bigotry is against conservatives.

Right, Cannoli already attributed that analogy to Lincoln, and several people have already addressed it: Call an elephant COW "LA elephante" rather than "EL elephante" and any fluent Spanish speaker will assume you an idiot.

Correct: Changing "gender"s ACTUAL meaning because it squicks a small minority would not change that ACTUAL meaning a bit (just screw up English.)

Correct again: The problem emerges with declaring people fundamentally and inherently wrong and dysfunctional. They ARE, but no more than anyone, so no more worthy of censure. One should certainly seize any OCCASION and opportunity to state their case on MERIT and with the same basic universal respect and consideration every person deserves. Note that does NOT include (and actually PRECLUDES) vicious insults and belittling. Not only does such an approach "persuade" no one of anything (except that the speaker is an ass) and instead prompt justified angry dismissal of deeply offensive remarks, it would be wrong regardless because one should not speak to fellow human beings like a stray dog that just sprayed their carpet.

The bottom line is always the same: Rational consenting adults are entitled to do as they please individually and collectively. I have never heard of anyone who PREFERRED hallucinating bugs beneath their skin, but if someone who does finds a doctor who believes implanting them is consistent with the hippocratic oath, I wish them both all the luck they shall need. If one of them mentioned it to me I would certainly do my best to talk them out of it, but not by calling them deranged perverts (in fact, I would consciously avoid that because rather than hearing me out they would THROW me out, and be justified.)

Oh, I've been on messageboards before, and I get how conversations go, but when I see this exact same derailment every time anywhere liberals and conservatives are "discussing" something, I feel that I should step in where I can and call people out on it. If you're not going to discuss the point of what someone says, why even bother acknowledging that they said anything?

Ignoring something doesn't make it go away, and I still have yet to see any cohesive argument against Cannoli's thesis.

Again, several people have given the response I have twice repeated: Gender and sex are not synonymous, so one can change even though the other cannot, and there is nothing unscientific about that.

Addressing a thesis' supporting arguments is not arguing about "nothing," it is arguing about the thesis. If someone disputed Cannolis point without addressing ANY of his supporting arguments, he would (enthusiastically) shred them for closed minded denial that ignored his logic and evidence.

"Theses," and which cannot be constructively debated without also addressing their supporting arguments. Since those arguments are (ideally) the bulk of arguments of which the thesis is only the principal one, and since that principal argument stands or falls SOLELY on those supporting arguments, those are the primary ones responders have addressed. No one has ignored the thesis, only defeated it in detail, as it advanced in detail, as is proper.

Oh, that last part required no aid, but few (if any) people have ignored Cannolis pointS, not even his thesis. People have simply addressed far more of his pointS than JUST the thesis, because simply shouting, "NUH UH!" is in no sense debate (even if Monty Python makes the case it IS an argument. )