So I Answer with nuance about said shades of gray, and your response is that you don't want to read that much and "Its a binary question".
> For the record, the narrative I'm pushing here is "shades of gray
Fine. Let's assume that's true.
> Convicted formerly-male rapist, now identifies as female. Which prison do they go to
With information given, it doesn't matter, but generally default to male for violent criminals.
Reason: You prioritize protecting others from violent offenders over the offender themself when push comes to shove, which is what you're forcing by framing the question in such a way.
If we modify the question slightly to remove the implication and give enough actual information to make a determination, we'd specify who the male had raped. You send them to the opposite. Unless it's both/unclear, in which case, you refer back to my default.
It's not a hard question. But the way you frame it is straight out of a fascist handbook (Throw the "paradox" of tolerance in their face while strictly framing the question in a way that does not allow for nuance), especially while trying to advocate for "shades of gray" while insisting on reducing the discussion to a binary question. It's not productive discourse.
So no, the narrative here you're pushing is not "shades of gray", it's literally binary.
Hang on, we agree on where the prisoner should go. Obvious slam dunk case.
Why am I a fascist for it and you're not?
Yes I am deliberately winding you up here but maybe you're overattached to some narrative points? It comes off just like the people raving about groomers.
You still haven't picked up on the fact that I'm addressing your choice of manner to engage as a troll, not on the merit of subject at hand because I knew this wasn't about that anyway.
I don't know if you're a fascist, but you're using textbook fascist tactics to very poorly try to "gotcha me" before I called you out for not engaging in this topic in good faith, which you've now admitted multiple times.
> For the record, the narrative I'm pushing here is "shades of gray
Fine. Let's assume that's true.
> Convicted formerly-male rapist, now identifies as female. Which prison do they go to
With information given, it doesn't matter, but generally default to male for violent criminals.
Reason: You prioritize protecting others from violent offenders over the offender themself when push comes to shove, which is what you're forcing by framing the question in such a way.
If we modify the question slightly to remove the implication and give enough actual information to make a determination, we'd specify who the male had raped. You send them to the opposite. Unless it's both/unclear, in which case, you refer back to my default.
It's not a hard question. But the way you frame it is straight out of a fascist handbook (Throw the "paradox" of tolerance in their face while strictly framing the question in a way that does not allow for nuance), especially while trying to advocate for "shades of gray" while insisting on reducing the discussion to a binary question. It's not productive discourse.
So no, the narrative here you're pushing is not "shades of gray", it's literally binary.