I read the whole thing, and the entire argument is basically “trans narratives as created by the 1960s-1980s medical establishment don’t match the narratives as created by trans people on social media in the 2010s-2020s” and assuming that only the former is true, while the latter is social contagion. Well, okay, there’s also argument from incredulity, particularly the section on non-binary people.
And, more relevant to this post, there’s a general assumption that “the things which I (or the people I’m getting this stuff from) go out of my/their way to see, and the hypothetical horrors invented by conservative media, are all which exists”. It’s the sort of things which *could* mostly be dispelled by actually knowing a trans person… though more likely it would just get them labeled as “one of the good ones”. But since I note that this person appears to be associated with PITT, it’s extremely likely that their (seemingly reluctant) affirmation of the older concept of “transsexuals” would go out the window if it was someone they knew pre-transition.
The funniest part is the sole response to this essay, where someone claims that the label of “transphobe” is invalid because nobody identifies as one. [EDIT] I later went and looked at the link provided along with that assertion. And the essay in that link seems to be claiming that gender norms are not unreasonable and if you’re against people enforcing them, you’re “normophobic”. Meanwhile trans people aren’t reasonable so claiming anyone with an aversion to them is a transphobe is invalid. At least this one is aware that “-phobia” has long meant more than “fear”.