Nature doesn't have a "supposed to be", in the first place. You're assigning some kind of purpose to how things are. That's the other problem with your Switch example, the supposed to be is because it was made to work a certain way. If I make a piece of furniture with the intent that it's to be a kitchen table, I might be disappointed if it's a bad kitchen table. 

Nature doesn't make things with intent. It throws everything at the wall, and some things end up sticking better. 

At one point, animals were not "supposed to" breathe on land in the first place. It ended up being a useful change.

I've been meaning to get back to you on this since last time.

>it is much clearer if you separate sex and gender 

I think it is important to meet people's arguments where they're understanding it. If someone refuses to acknowledge the difference or refuses to believe that there is a difference between gender and sex, then I think it's important to talk about their underlying assumptions. 

Pointing out how masculine and feminine traits aren't completely separate things in the first place, I think is a meaningful critique of a lot of transphobic arguments. Pointing out that the assumption that is made - that men and women are just wildly different creatures - is inaccurate I think is a useful starting step.  

In another example, we shouldn't need to justify homosexuality in the first place. It doesn't actually hurt anyone, and it's just diversity. But people will still question why people are gay in the first place - whether there's an evolutionary reason for it. And people will argue that they we do see homosexual behaviors in animals, contradicting the claim that it's an unnatural behavior (as if that's a meaningful argument in the first place).  

You’re totally correct, people on the right have never  disowned their family members for things like having an abortion or having a child out of wedlock or for being gay or dating someone of a different race or religion.

Are you living under a rock?

There are people that have killed their children for being gay. 

Left wingers talk about all of these things all the time. Almost nothing is simple. 

In my experience, right wingers are the ones who want simple answers. XY=male, XX=female, whereas left wingers are like "check this out":

Meanwhile:

"Black guy got shot by a police officer? He was probably being rude and probably had it coming".

"3 year old illegal immigrant killed by Texas trap? Should have known better than to come here."

Unfortunately, your story is a dime a dozen. That’s why its pointless even responding to that guy who immediately jumped into the discussion and on his first comment started with a completely outrageous reality defying lie. 

The female of our species is supposed to carry our children. So yes, nature has a supposed to be. It might have been random when we first evolved into what we are today, but now that we have evolved, we have purposes. 

I'm aware of at least one study whose finding is that beer works well for recovering from sports (fatigue). I don't doubt the study, but it's probably full of all kinds of gotchas. In particular, I suspect it's true only under some fairly specific circumstances, which might or might not reflect real circumstances well, and it also doesn't touch on the negative aspects of beer. Like I said earlier: context matters a lot (to be clear, I'm kind of including limitations etc. in 'context' here).

In case you were wondering, yes, IIRC the study was performend in collaboration with a brewery or some other party related to the beverage industry.

This threat actually started out quite neutral and sharing ideas. Then it again became a 'let me tell you why the other side is so bad'.

What a waste

Literally two comments in there is a comment from a user which makes the claim: "it almost seems like a mantra of the left to not listen or talk to people with different views." and the thread was almost immediately a left vs right debate then followed immediately by a debate about trans people and how the left don't know what a woman is, yeah, it was totally neutral and sharing ideas, Lol. 🙄

Don't know why you're trying to take a moral high ground. This thread was doomed from the start when the OP used a title which the study itself doesn't even make the claim of, or put the bare minimum amount of information in the OP about the study such as sample size, the questions posed, the 5 data point methodology, etc. To intentionally frame it in a negative way towards the left.

The questions alone (all 8 of them) make it stupid to make the assertion in the title, I don't really think there's much to even take from this 396 sample size study of 8 questions which are based on an agreement strength scale for a majority of questions which I didn't need a study to tell me that left wingers typically strongly support, I can easily come up with 8 questions which left wingers would find disagreement over, especially if we're talking about American left-wingers I.E. Democrats who are majority centrist, Lol.

Make a thread about a cute puppy and it will turn into a Left vs Right sooner or later.

Will you pop into that thread too and say we don't know what a female dog is?