>>10675931>thereby suggesting that
So there's this thing called "leading the conversation" that doesn't actually have to happen. Debates can become unfocused and turn into idle discussion, and that's fine. Most people work this way. Only a very small set of highly polarized (moral) topics end up with tangent distributions that converge on adversarial composition.
Fuck it. Since you didn't >>10675855
I'll just explain the mystery.
That one particle is what both you and SJWs have in common; the pretense that all claims have to be falsified in an equivalent manner. Both of you are trying to beat each other over the head with what OUGHT to be implied by any piece of dialogue, and it is there and in that that social justice takes root. The idea that something was implied, and that we have an obligation to control the implications. No. That's not how reality works. Emanation does not extend from every substance in existence. There are things that don't have implications. It's possible to construct them.
In this specific instance, SJWs can claim both that gender is a social construct AND that we "owe" something to transgender individuals as a society because the justice they seek is social in nature. In other words, they aim to REPAIR social constructs, not get rid of them entirely. The problem is that both sides (/pol/ and Tumblr, to oversimplify it a little) are trying to perform operations on a no-op material; a society composed purely of moral pretense.
Neither of you know what would be the greater good for the greatest number of people. The last great success in the experiment of human justice was individual liberty, the American dream. We don't know the next step, but we can clearly see the concept being copied around the globe.
Thinking an evolutionary algorithm is finished is only ever a local circumstance.