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, th

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.