Right, well you've amply described why those who consider themselves somewhat aware of the technical aspects underlying this debate dislike XT. I agree with all of that, so your post title is inaccurate, I think you do understand it. I'd just point out in addition that there are 2 other categories (both political, but relevant to development) of contention also; the necessary change in management that an XT fork would involve, and the perhaps inevitable change in development direction.
One thing that I don't understand is why does Bitcoin XT have the other features, such as auto-dropping of TOR nodes? And can the Bitcoin XT node be forced into the 'quiet' node format? From what I have found out, it looks like it leaks the node's IP address while it's supposed to be hidden.
I had always assumed the "IP blacklisting" stuff was pure made up counter-offensive FUD, but what you're saying implies it has some basis in fact. The interpretation of the new behaviour in respect of Tor nodes is perhaps exaggerated; "deprioritisation" is the description given for what happens to the condition of a Tor node's connection to any given XT node, although they are awarded the harshest score within the de-priority range. How this manifests in practice, I am not yet sure.