For those reading along at home, Mets has provided many older (and some recent) examples of what happens when someone posts things he doesn't want to address, as those have been his responses to his own posts and mine used as evidence proving his misinterpretations and lies were just that. To be clear, the behavior involves describing the argument in a different way that he'd rather respond to instead of what
the post he's replying to clearly laid out - the Mischaracterization of Arguments which has the most people upset that I've noticed. It involves ignoring the evidence of the post he's quoting, as well as pretending not to understand what the problem is when called on it (Playing Dumb).
But if we take a look at one of the "annoying memes" I posted:
If you click the included link and look up at the previous 2 posts, you'll notice why, with this bit in particular standing out:
That bolded bit at the end lets us know he's misinterpreting the math specifically to be obnoxious as he knew what I meant and posted that way deliberately instead of there being genuine confusion or misunderstanding. That behavior hasn't changed as recent examples have shown.
So here I am reposting the same old quote to respond to the same behavior from years ago still on display, and it becomes more true the more Mets tries to inject false ambiguity into another situation:
To explain to others: Using genderless information to make a transphobic lie specifically about a certain gender (Like Abigail Shrier's book with the subtitle "The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters") is ignoring how much Trans Women have increased how they openly identify as well. The fact that any increase was likely due to the relaxing in bigotry against Trans people was not only pointed out to Mets at the time but he replied to it, so it is a convenient thing to ignore when bringing up older arguments - Like nullifying the agency of those who specifically said they weren't listed.
And finally: