[advisedwang]

You're kidding right? Even the biggest trans-ally, who spends to much time on twitter and thinks identity politics is the final hurdle in society wouldn't hesitate to pick saving the lives over a microaggression, and would recognize that even deigning to write why would be undignified.

[wat10000]

I wouldn't, because it's a stupid hypothetical. Any response that takes the question seriously should count as wrong.

[TeMPOraL]

That reaction makes zero sense.

[wat10000]

Why? It's a troll question. It's obviously designed to so the questioner can attack you based on your answer, whichever way it may be. It's about as sensible as a little kid's "what if frogs had cars?" except it's also malicious.

[gadders]

I believe Caitlin Jenner famously did just that.

[anothermathbozo]

Not all hypotheticals are worth answering. Some are even so poorly put that it's a more pro-social use of one's energy to address the shallow nature of the exercise to begin with.

If I asked an intelligent thing "is it ethical to eat my child if it saves the other two" I would be mortified if the intelligent thing entertained the hypothetical without addressing the disgusting nature of the question and the vacuousness of the whole exercise first.

Questions like these don't do anything to further our understanding of the world we live in or leave us any better prepared for real-world scenarios we are ever likely to encounter. They do add to an enormous dog-pile of vitriol real people experience every day by constructing bizarre and disgusting hypotheticals whereby real discrimination is construed as permissible, if regrettable.

[almostdeadguy]

The point is that this is an idiotic, bad faith question that has no actual utility in moral philosophy. If an AI assistant's goal is to actually assist the user in some way, answering this asinine question is doing them a disservice.