I didn't mean tone as in the intonation of your words, I meant the specific words you chose and what they imply.
You made it clear that you know where I currently stand on the topic, where I have stood on it in the past, what I do or don't know, and that you're way of viewing the topic is right and I just need to "see the light" as it were.
All of that was very clear in your written words, verbal intonation was needed to know what you meant and how you viewed me in that exchange.
You really like to read a lot more into my words then are (or ever could be) there.
Let be be more explicit: my original comment was just to take the point you were not quite making and instead make it explicit… prisons don’t work at all, and can’t work if their intent isn’t to keep everyone safe.
I’m not a fan whatsoever of the “sex is almost universally binary” statement, as nothing can possibly be “almost universally” binary; there are either precisely two options or what you do not have is a binary. I also am not a fan of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” thought-terminating cliche, or your response to someone (very rightly) pointing out that there’s a greater evil in those two choices… but I wasn’t actually criticizing your point or your beliefs or you, just your rather ambiguous wording. I only got critical at the point of pointless tone-policing, since “tone” is practically impossible to correctly surmise in a written communication.
I don’t know a thing about you, except that you appear easily distracted by fuzzy thinking. This, of course, is almost universally human, so I’m not being even remotely sarcastic here, either.
You made it clear that you know where I currently stand on the topic, where I have stood on it in the past, what I do or don't know, and that you're way of viewing the topic is right and I just need to "see the light" as it were.
All of that was very clear in your written words, verbal intonation was needed to know what you meant and how you viewed me in that exchange.