It doesn't.
Which, if she hasn't said anything, would require challenging her in some way.
Yes, it does. Either he should do what he wants, or he should do what "will cause less disruption and make [him] and everyone else safest." These are not at all the same.
It would require talking to her. That doesn't require challenging her.
No. I'm saying that a woman who is wondering about this manish woman could simply talk to her, and thereby discover that she is not in fact a man.
I don't support your straw man either.
You're ignoring the difference in agency. One is what I think she should do. But I have no authority over the question, so that's just advice. She's the one who has to actually make the decision.
If you're talking to her because you think she looks like a man and might not belong, you're challenging her. Maybe you'd think you're being subtle about it, but she will probably see through it.
Yes. That's called "challenging her."
It's not a straw man. It's what you're saying should happen.
Nobody's making the latter demand.
I gave you that out already when I made the distinction between what he should do and what he will do. You doubled down on should being whatever he wants.
Then so the ◊◊◊◊ what? Do you think she's going to be upset if some woman says, "Nice weather we're having"? If you want to call that challenging her, then why is that a problem? It isn't.
Maybe. And maybe she's mature enough to take it in stride and not get her panties in a twist like you apparently are on her behalf.
That's not the correct distinction.
Because she will know what you're doing, and like I said, it bothers her.
Yeah. And maybe she just smiles and nods, because she knows what you're doing and she wants no part of it.
You have contradicted yourself again, since you clearly DID give a different possible answer as your first answer. And your latest answer is clearly wrong anyways. Your latest answer is only the correct answer to what Hill MAY do. It is not and never was a sensible answer to what Hill SHOULD do. It's a peculiar sort of immaturity to not understand the distinction between may and should.
And the presence of Hill in the women's bathroom bothers other people.
I'll say it again: what I think she should do, and what she thinks she should do, are two different things. And those are both "shoulds", not a should and a may.
I'm not the one having trouble with basic normative language, here.
Then the presence of my acquaintance would also bother other people.
No ◊◊◊◊, Sherlock. But I asked you, not him. Which means the correct answer to my question is what you think he should do, not what he thinks he should do.
You absolutely are. At every single step.
Then why do you care about your acquaintance being bothered? Is it just because they are your acquaintance?
Then I already answered your question, and you're just raging about the fact that I gave you an additional pertinent observation. This is in no sense a "contradiction."
I'm not. You just aren't being reasonable enough to understand.
I don't, at least not from a perspective of policy. I'd be more worried about people being more than bothered.
You didn't give me additional pertinent observation, you contradicted yourself. And you're doing it again here:
What is least disruptive is not the same answer as whatever he feels is best. This isn't additional information, it's a contradiction. And it is precisely because the law allows either answer that the law is irrelevant to my question. The law is only relevant to the question of what he may do.
I'm not the one contradicting myself.
"I know you don't like doctors, but I think you should see a doctor. Ultimately, it's up to you" as a response to "What do you think I should I do about this back pain?" is not a contradiction, except to an idiot.
Of course it's not the same answer. It's an answer to two different sets of obligations--those we have to each other, and those we have to the law.
But you are the one who thinks this is a contradiction, which is idiotic.
But that's not what you actually said. What you said is more equivalent to, "You should see a doctor. Also, you should do whatever you feel like doing." And that is a contradiction. Only an idiot would recognize that "ultimately it's up to you" ISN'T an answer to the question of what you should do. It's part of a response, a way to disavow responsibility for the decision, and that's relevant to the interaction between you and someone you know. But Hill isn't part of this conversation, neither of us have any relationship with him, and there is no purpose in disavowing responsibility because no responsibility is assumed or implied. So the purpose that such a response (not answer) has in social situations does not exist here.
Again, I did not ask what Hill may do.
It is what I actually said.
And this is why it's obvious that you don't know how to deal with normative language. Ought implies can--what you may do is directly relevant to what you should to do.
