[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

The dog example is flimsy considering you can also flip that to work the other way round. At the end of the day you're arguing, pretty much the same as Yaniv did in the interview I posted in the OP. Trans rights trump womens. Do women have the right to say NO? Nope, not anymore apparently. Under his eye

Why is it flimsy? It's pointing out that extreme examples are not a good benchmark for advocating sweeping change.

We could take asylum seekers as another example, then. Have people abused the asylum system to enter nations with malicious intent? Yes, there are obvious and clear examples of this happening. And people have been hurt and killed. There are many, MANY people who would use this - the fact that there are dangerous individuals willing to exploit the asylum system - as evidence that we must "rethink the system". And who would argue that anyone who disagrees " clearly doesn't care about the victims or potential victims of those people". Is a traitor or unpatriotic.

It is a direct comparison. It is more or less exactly the same thing.

Do I think that extreme examples of violent individuals gaining access to countries full of people they want to attack is a problem? Obviously, yes I do. Do I think it means we need to halt, reconsider, or have a sweeping overhaul of the asylum system? No absolutely not.

So why would I think that we need a sweeping overhaul of trans rights for the same reason? I'm not willing to be that sort of hypocrite.