Before modification by Joel at 20/06/2015 04:05:03 AM
Firstly, yes, that is his thesis, but if you thought it was vague or poorly worded, I really don't know what to tell you, other than I think I have some Berenstein Bears books I could let you borrow.
That thesis is what I wrote. Cannoli's post was 5 paragraphs, none particularly concise.
Hey, man, do not be a locquaciphobe: We are people, too!
A bit? But that's what he IS. He is someone who is anti-trans people, rights, and acceptance. That's what being transphobic IS. He doesn't have to go beating up Thai ladyboys in the street to make that so.
That last sentence is offensive to people who beat transgendered people to death for being transgendered. So insensitive... 
So intolerant of lactose intolerance, too?! 
Wait, that is a double negative, so maybe OK. But two wrongs make no right... but three lefts do.... 
That's not me putting words into his mouth, that is his position. At least he's OWNING it. So don't whine that people are pigeonholing him into some kind of anti-trans position. Cannoli has been adamant- this is what he believes, this is why he believes it.
That's what being "transphobic" IS.
Normally I would agree; Cannolis candor (to the uncertain extent it is not just for spectacle) is part of what I like about him. That said, he has tried to have it both ways a bit since starting the thread: He has nominally but consistently acknowledged the transgendereds FREEDOM to dress as they please and have hormone therapy and/or reassignment surgery, and implies that demonstrates due tolerance. I would probably even buy that were his language not just as consistently demeaning and incendiary. For the sake of my own candor, I largely share his objections in principle, but do not believe strong fundamental disagreement with how a person lives according to THEIR beliefs justifies talking of and TO them like they are bad dogs. I can fudamentally, morally and otherwise disagree with someone without denying them basic univeral human respect, and believe everyone SHOULD.
...You do realize this is basically irrelevant, right? Even if I fully agreed with you that the definition of gender was manipulated from it's "true" definition, it doesn't really change anything.
A trans person is a person who feels like a person of a different sex than they were born as. I mean, if you want to invent some new, third word for that, you can? It doesn't make the concept go away.
The arguments premise would remain untrue regardless: As a native English speaker who daily struggles with "unnatural" gender-based noun declensions, I can attest gender and sex are not synonymous. And not because I am trans- nor homophobic against cars (though I concede I have always found it odd that "mädchen" is a NEUTER word.)
As for Cannoli bringing creationism into the what-I-hesitate-to-even-call-a-discussion, it was brought up because other people completely ignored his thesis(remember, that thing a 'debate' is supposed to be centered on) to nitpick on an offhanded comment about fossils.
It spun off into a side conversation. Have you never been on a message board before? Cannoli said something that people wanted to discuss, and the format of this message board meant that it became its own sub-discussion.
Well, if Cannoli and I avoided tangents we would both make far shorter posts; OTOH, it is no ones fault (if fault it is) that we do not. For example, I could (and perhaps should) have skipped responding (facetiously and seriously) to some of your other points and just stuck with the subject lines response to the one that caught my eye. My response might have been more compelling, too. Yet there could hardly be a more appropriate thread in which to say, "I gotta be me." 