Swiss Army Man and Transgenderism

Actually I think you have a good point

"If you'd like to put forward your reason why you think a transgender interpretation of 'Swiss Army Man' is invalid or preposterous, I'd be happy to hear it."

It's not invalid, but I think it's quite a weak interpretation that looks for something that isn't there because it's an issue you feel strongly about, and that's fine, but it feels like you're reverse engineering the movie to suit what you'd like it to be. Hank is a biological male and identifies as such, I didn't see anything that suggested otherwise. The mere fact of a man dressing like a woman in a movie isn't enough to come to such a specific interpretation, especially in the context of everything else in the movie. He doesn't dress like a woman because he feels feminine, he dresses like a woman in the context of his fantasy friendship with a cadaver, and he only did so for a couple of scenes at most. If (and a big if) anything the man is a transvestite, which is quite different from being transgender.

When I said your post feels like parody, it's because to me your interpretation really sounds like something out of the onion.

That moment it's what holds a double interpretation I think. He kisses him as a man, but transmutes mentally as Sarah, so I guess both interpretations have solid grounds.

I'm liberal, and I too get sick of those on the left reaching for things to meet their ideology. Seeing what they want to see. If a film or peice of art actually supports that and tackles those subjects, great.

For the record, those on the right also like to reach (particularly religious people who see religion in art). It's not exclusive to those on the Left. Also I have to say, logically the films plot does not really support the thesis of OP. Of course the Daniels are going to say they are "open to whatever people's interpretations are". That's what most Artists will say, as art generally can be interpreted many ways. And they don't want to TELL people how to feel about art.

But I guess that kind of is its own point, isn't it? I mean this film is kind of vague and open in a lot of ways. It's not like a concrete plot, where things are more defined. So in films like this, the audience does kind of take away what they want from it. I guess my issue is, people are pointing towards the kiss and the dress scene. But clearly in his mind, he's doing it from the perspective of the guy kissing the girl. So beyond that, it's kind of ADDING what you want to it (but the plot doesn't go beyond that to support it).

I'm mexican, and yea i'm pretty pissed because trump won because of special snowflakes like yourself