No, Dave, the simile includes the existential function of being "Nazi" or "transgender", because the simile is part of a justification.
Let us try a removed example:
• Some years ago, we had a police shooting in Seattle that was an unfortunate string of incidents by which SPD really cemented its dubious reputation. And the thing is, I don't use the colloquialism that goes there because I reject it; to the other, there are few insults that strike so deep, and they all suffer similar problems. But, yeah, it a period that really projected an image of police as a whining bunch of frightened sacks of something or other. (At one point, they sued the estate of a dead bank robber for the emotional damage of denying them an arrest; it wasn't dignified, to say the least.)
A developmentally disrupted man known in the neighborhood apparently jacked a convenience store with a kitchen knife. And, look, it's easy enough to do the re-enactment. Stand twenty-five feet away from someone, with your back to them. Turn quickly and then start running toward them. The police shot when he turned around. It's easy to say that was way early, and yet another example of just how terrified these police are, but in the end, yeah, it's a guy with a knife turning around suddenly. Regardless of what critics say, that's usually enough to do it, and it passes muster. And, honestly, maybe I don't like that particular shoot, but we're right up against the threshold; I probably don't get "beyond a reasonable doubt", and maybe I can do enough math to have clear preponderence of evidence but even then I'm not winning a jury.
I raise this example because, still, to this day I say that by the description we got from the police, they shot early. So I say: "You don't kill a guy for that."
Okay, so says me.
What if I say, "You don't kill a guy for that, just like you don't kill dude over there."
Okay, so ... maybe you and I can argue all day about whether or not turning around, or making a sudden move, while holding a knife at a minimum range of twenty-five feet, is reasonable cause to kill.
And ... maybe you are going to look at me just a bit askance and wonder why the question of killing dude over there or not is even on the table; seriously, maybe guy had a knife but, seriously, what the hell did dude over there do?
They're separate questions.
A developmentally disrupted man known in the neighborhood apparently jacked a convenience store with a kitchen knife. And, look, it's easy enough to do the re-enactment. Stand twenty-five feet away from someone, with your back to them. Turn quickly and then start running toward them. The police shot when he turned around. It's easy to say that was way early, and yet another example of just how terrified these police are, but in the end, yeah, it's a guy with a knife turning around suddenly. Regardless of what critics say, that's usually enough to do it, and it passes muster. And, honestly, maybe I don't like that particular shoot, but we're right up against the threshold; I probably don't get "beyond a reasonable doubt", and maybe I can do enough math to have clear preponderence of evidence but even then I'm not winning a jury.
I raise this example because, still, to this day I say that by the description we got from the police, they shot early. So I say: "You don't kill a guy for that."
Okay, so says me.
What if I say, "You don't kill a guy for that, just like you don't kill dude over there."
Okay, so ... maybe you and I can argue all day about whether or not turning around, or making a sudden move, while holding a knife at a minimum range of twenty-five feet, is reasonable cause to kill.
And ... maybe you are going to look at me just a bit askance and wonder why the question of killing dude over there or not is even on the table; seriously, maybe guy had a knife but, seriously, what the hell did dude over there do?
They're separate questions.
My reasons for not punching the Nazi are on record in this thread. In truth, I can't imagine how that argument would apply to why one doesn't just go around clocking transgender. Seriously, they're completely separate questions. They are not "like" at all.
I can say a lot on behalf of Christanity, too, in this context; I might well disdain its public discourse representation in my society, and such influences and impacts as those elements can have on my own and other people's qualities of life, but I'm not ready to indict the ministry of Christ that way. Say what you will about the Pauline evangelism; I don't trust it. But, seriously, Nazis to the one, and Jesus freaking Christ to the other; something is amiss in this aspect of the simile. And in observing the difference between "Christianity" and the legendary personage of Christ we must account for the diversity of individual "Christians"; in truth, the "Christians" causing the most damage (and thus subject to accusations of being Nazis, fascists, or American Taliban) are Xinos―Christianists. So, no. To assert that, it is not okay to punch a Nazi just like it is not okay to punch a Christian, is likewise denigrating.
)