It's not even remotely a good analogy. 

You're actually the one in this scenario insisting that the Switch must be portable because all the other ones are. In this scenario I'm recognizing that some of them might not be. 

It's pretty messed up in the first place to suggest that someone is defective. 

No I don't care about being right at all.  I want people to stop being crappy to each other, because "it doesn't make sense to me". 

Yeah, sorry Im not a wizard with words like you who compare women to shark attacks...

You seriously think that's just as bad?

It's also not what I said. My comment doesn't even have anything to do with "women". It's just pointing out the problem with your idea of rarity. 

While you are arguing that people are "supposed" to be a certain way - and we should ignore them if they aren't that way, because the exceptions are rare. And that matters because of reasons.

>Its about the rule, not the exeption.

Again - the exceptions still matter when it comes to reality. 

Yes, people are supposed to be a certain way. We are supposed to have two eyes, one nose, two arms, two legs etc... If you dont, then you have a defect. Doesnt make you less of a human, but something is indeed missing.

Ok so let’s go with what you’re saying, being trans is a mental or physical disability……we’re still not supposed to discriminate against people with disabilities, we are supposed to make accommodations for people with disabilities, people with disabilities have the same rights as others, people with disabilities are able to seek out treatment.

The way the right treats transgender people is the equivalent to banning people with autism from playing sports, banning handicap parking or tearing our wheelchair accessible ramps, getting pissed when a piece of media features a character with depression, boycotting a company because it’s ads have an actor with down syndrome, denying medication to someone with asthma, denying employment to someone with hearing aids, denying housing to someone with a missing limb, etc.

I didnt say being trans is a disability at all...

Actually they would have more varying viewpoints than the left on this one. As has been mentioned before, if you have one side that's just correct than the one that has some people that are wrong has more varying viewpoints. In this case the question would be something like: "Do you agree that Joe Biden won the 2020 election?" And the left would almost entirely strongly agree while the right would have a variety of viewpoints on the matter. 

You’ve been arguing with multiple people about sex/gender this entire thread with quotes like, “that’s because people on the left keep bringing birth defects and other rare illnesses into the argument” & “yes, people are supposed to be a certain way…..if you don’t then you have a defect”

You have referred to it as a defect twice.

You’ve been arguing with multiple people about sex/gender this entire thread with quotes like, “that’s because people on the left keep bringing birth defects and other rare illnesses into the argument” & “yes, people are supposed to be a certain way…..if you don’t then you have a defect”

You have referred to it as a defect twice.

Admittedly I've only skimmed through the important parts of the study, but based on that, I think this seems like a really poor thing to pick out from the study - possibly even because this might not have been a focus of the study, but also because important context was left out (excerpt from the discussion section):

"It is possible that holding extreme (and thus unnegotiable) attitudes on important social-political issues has become increasingly identity defining for Democrats, not least in response to Donald Trump's controversial presidency. The pattern does not imply that Republicans are more tolerant than Democrats, nor that Republicans could deal better with attitudinal uncertainty. It does imply, however, that –at this particular moment in time– Democrats and Republicans are constructing and managing their partisan identities differently in relation to the topics reflected in these questionnaire items. Research suggests that social category membership (e.g., being White, Christian) is more important for the construction of Republican identity than it is for Democrat identity (Mason & Wronski, 2018). Fulfilling such normative criteria may hence qualify someone as a valid group member even if that same person may hold somewhat liberal views on, for example, gay marriage."

I feel like having this context from the start would have greatly benefitted discussion, which seems mostly of quite low quality to me at the moment. Research in general should, in my opinion, be cited and drawn conclusions from only very carefully, because it's incredibly easy to draw the wrong conclusions and focus on the wrong things if you're not an expert on the subject.