I agree that some posters are convincing, whether they are naturally gifted or have educated themselves to be such.
I think what is more important is the reader, and whether they possess the ability to follow logic, to reason reliably.
Without logic, the most emotionally compelling but illogical argument cannot reach those who can see the fatal flaw in the argument.
Without the subject matter to work with, persuasive people will only ever be able to persuade those who can't reason for themselves.
If all the most wonderfully articulate speakers tried to persuade me that 2+2=5, I wouldn't believe it, and if people I reviled told me 2+2=4 I couldn't reject that because I didn't respect the speaker.
I cannot accept that any person is actually 'trans', because I have concluded that it is physically impossible for a person to be physically one sex yet psychologically the other. And this is because I can see that there is a universal, immutable and unambiguous physical reproductive sex, yet there is not the same thing psychologically. There IS no universal psychological way to be female.
The most persuasive person in the world could not convince me that such a thing as an innate female psychology existed and was as universal to the female sex as say XX chromosomes, if they had no evidence to support that position.
And I cannot give credence to a logical fallacy, no matter who defends it. A person cannot be what they wish to be purely by declaring it so.
I cannot believe to be true that which I can already see to be false. No matter who insists it is so.