Addressing the point. Do you agree or disagree that "trans people existing" is too vague to be meaningful? Alternatively, what exactly do you mean by "existing"?
"Genuine discussion" includes responding to the topic of "trans people existing" by pointing out that "existing" is vague and needs further definition. That is genuine discussion, inviting you to clarify what you mean by "existing". I helpfully included a few other relevant bits of genuine discussion that welcome related tangents, but directly responded to your comment with genuine discussion directly about "trans people existing".
If you're going to no-true-genuine that conversation that's fine I guess, but I don't really understand the point of wasting time on simple rhetorical tricks that don't fool anyone.
> Do you agree or disagree that "trans people existing" is too vague to be meaningful? Alternatively, what exactly do you mean by "existing"?
A genuine response would be responding to that, not metacommentary while refusing to engage. A simple response of "By existing I mean ..." would be perfectly genuine.
Based on your responses I have concluded that your original comment about bad faith was a projection. I'd love to learn more about what caused you to be this way. Whether you intend to or not, your comments constitute trolling and ultimately lower the quality of HN.
They've done this same tactic and question avoidance, perhaps quite literally hundreds of times on Hacker News. And I am frankly surprised people haven't caught on to this user and that they are even still allowed around here, given that this type of stuff is almost their sole contribution.
Its intentional, as well. I remember reading a comment where I think they just straight up admitted to doing this.
If you want a fun read, go back through their comment history and you'll find a multitude of users having the same problem as you are having with interactions with them.