LangCleg, ZebrasAreBras , that is an interesting point (regarding black and blue), this is rather reminiscent of the blue & black/white & gold dress. I remember that the majority of comments from people were steadfastly commenting one way or the other. As time went by, more comments emerged criticising those still engaged in the debate. However, there were also people who claimed to see one set of colours but were interested in why other people saw the other colour pair. The debate was particularly interesting because there was very approximately an even divide in groups and it was difficult for both to clearly enunciate why they had a certain opinion to the other. The latter group resulted in a truly edifying inquiry into how we process visual information.
In this case, I believe the source of the difference of opinion comes down to fine parsing vs holistic analysis. My opinion that these rules are not specific to either transphobia or this section is based upon taking both your cited statement and:
We’ll be introducing a three strikes system whereby users deleted more than three times in any rolling six week period will have their membership automatically suspended and we’ll then take a view as to whether they will have membership reinstated.
into account. In the case of transphobia on FWR, while the ban is automatic, it is also temporary and subject to review, while, for general cases the statement of:
in practice, three deletions would usually lead to a suspension elsewhere on site.
also means that there is a possibility of permanent banning.
littlbrowndog, lorit, that's a shame. It's an interesting co-incidence that you both found what I had to say unimportant enough to dismiss out of hand but simultaneously important enough to take the time to tell me off. 
Justhadathought, if you were to blindly meet me in the street and have a conversation beyond the usual daily pleasantries, you'd probably figure out that you're talking to me within a few minutes. My way of speaking/typing is the product of what could be described as 'linguistic Darwinism': I've been working in a STEM field that was mostly male dominated when I started for over 30 years. As you can imagine, I wasn't taken terribly seriously by my male colleagues, one of the criticisms they liked to pick up on was the way I communicated. Over time, I emulated them, almost to the point of parody and, when you play a role long enough, it can become a part of you. To tell the truth, on some introspective evenings, I do wonder if I've lost something personal. However, I try not to worry too much because, while it may not have been a conscious choice, it would in some way acknowledge that I'd ceded personal agency in the first place if I tried to change at this stage. I don't think I'm especially clever, I just have a different set of interests.