>>936414395The logic doesn’t hold. You’re essentially saying:
>All A are B.>B and C are associated.>Therefore, if someone supports or defends C, they must be A.This is invalid reasoning. Just because all A are B, and B is related to C, doesn’t mean that everyone who supports C is an A.
To illustrate the flaw, consider this:
>All dogs are mammals.>Mammals are animals.>But not all animals are dogs.So if someone supports protecting animals (C), that doesn’t mean they specifically support dogs (A), let alone are dogs (which would be an even more absurd leap).
In other words, you're trying to reverse a one-way classification into an identity or obligation, which is logically invalid.
So saying I'm Jewish or trans because you're obsessed with the subject doesn't make that a logically valid argument.
Make sense?