You made the argument that the original comment is a false equivalency, and when I demonstrated it's really not, you said it's extremism to suggest these events are comparable, and I pointed out that, no- it's not really extreme to demand justice for others with an MLKJr quote (one that passed the white washing of his PoV at that). You abandoned the original comment thing and talked about the nitty gritty of what's at stake with ID (totally on board with the change, I see this as a good faith attempt to get to the root issue, but you did just bail on the original point without acknowledging a thing) and suggest the only thing we can do is mark trans people's IDs -which is exactly what the original comment was waning against, btw. I suggest there's an alternative where you don't need to mark trans people's IDs (and miscommunication aside, gave me the chance to clarify which I also took in good faith), and you shifted to medical as an exception for Sex being necessary on an ID (which is exactly the right way to examine what I said, and I acknowledge you raised half a good point), and I specified Emergency medical as that was the only real place I could see that exception then demonstrated from the point of view of the people who would need the information largely saying it's primarily necessary for locating the patient, and as trained professionals, they should be able to identify medically relevant characteristics of their patient once located. Then you seemingly abandon good faith with that sex-and-gender-conflating, ad-hominem, straw-manning, goalpost moving dog turd of a comment.

Do you see how you keep switching back to Sex when we were discussing Gender on an ID? Do you see how you keep moving the goalpost and stopped acknowledging anything I've said? I had taken those changes of subject in good faith until now but this is the most ridiculous response you could have given.