Kaitlyn, I only partially agree. Controlling the conceptualization is important. I think many of us agree with that - even those who dislike some terms. I don't EVER expect the cisgender population to regard us as normal and never as "merely" different (as some may regarding gays, for example). One can't rationally maintain that one is simply different ... yet needs to change. "OK, you're normal, just different? I see, and if it's so terrific to be what you are, you need to change it ... why???" (Yes, I'm aware that I'm conflating several different arguments here.)
Your major gripe is the irrelevance of the semantics, which is where I depart. It really DOESN'T matter to the trans person, one place we agree ... now. All the analysis mattered a great deal for a long while to me for my own understanding, though! But now as you say, it is what it is. It really, really does to the non-trans population, who needs a framework to understand. Beyond that, the framework translates into social acceptance, legal treatment, medicine and insurance, etc. I say tread carefully with the conceptualization and the semantics, because they have real teeth in the real world. Policy isn't writ on "it is what it is."