punches, kicks, and head butts come from individual parts of the body.
Right, but it's the punch itself, not the fist it's made with, that is an unarmed strike by the rules.
nothing states that there's any kind of limit on the number of unarmed attacks you can make in a round, except for the hard limit of your BAB.
And there is also no limit stated on the number of unarmed strikes you can posses.
your main hand is still your main hand, and the other hand(s) are still off hand(s).
Except that which is which no longer matters and can be changed, where as in 3.0, they were set and unchangeable, hence the need for the Ambidexterity feat.
I say it is outdated because it is a copy/paste of the 3.0 ability text...
No it's not.
My mistake. Someone put my spare copy of my 3.5 PHB in with my 3.0 books. It actually took three times rechecking what I thought was my 3.0 version before I caught the mistake.
Strangely enough, the 3.0 PHB is actually far more explicit, including a direct reference to interaction with TWF.
This also causes the 3.5 version to make less sense, as there is absolutely no need for that text under the 3.5 rules unless their intent was to call out interaction with TWF, which they entirely did not do.
2) If a monk is using a non-monkish weapon in her off hand, she ... cannot flurry at the same time.
That is already known, and it covers the more specific case as well.
I don't know about that... I think most people would regard that as "fighting with two weapons".
Right, but "fighting with two weapons" is not how the rules define "two weapon fighting" despite apparent similarities in form and name.
Eh... that's a pretty fine interpretation of the rules.
It's the most literal interpretation. The rule says a specific thing, so the rule applies when that thing happens.
I'm lost. Can you explain that a bit?
Specific rules override general rules in cases of contradiction.
We can either determine that the Monk entry is the one exception that assumes TWF without mentioning that it does, making them a more specific example, or we can determine that the TWF rules are the more specific and override the rules presented by Monks, meaning that Monks' off-hand unarmed strikes would still only receive half strength bonuses (per the TWF rules).
I believe that assuming an unstated assumption is entirely unreasonable and that we should determine TWF to be the more specific ruleset.