That's not what the paradox of tolerance states. What it states is that being tolerant of intolerance may lead to an intolerant society, which is not a bad point and is perhaps what you actually meant. Either way, I appreciate your effort to discuss the issue rather just insulting me.

I would argue that the nature of what is tolerated or not tolerated is of critical importance because it is the content of the intolerance that determines its moral value. To illustrate, few people would criticize me for being intolerant of a convicted pedophile sharing a public space with my children. The content of my intolerance matters.

My contention is that it is reasonable to be intolerant of allowing boys to change in a girls locker room, even if those boys insist that they really strongly feel like they are actually girls. The reason I am intolerant in these circumstances is that my concern for the group of girls exceeds my concern for the preferences of the transgender person. While you may not agree and may feel like the girls just need to tolerate feeling uncomfortable in their own locker room, what I hope is that we can have that conversation without vilifying those who disagree with us, vilifying the uncomfortable girls, or vilifying the transgender person. Because we are clearly going to be talking about this issue for a very long time.

If this viewpoint makes me intolerant, and if it is morally permissible for you to be intolerant of my intolerance, then you are in the awkward position of having to figure out how to censure/exile/execute nearly half the country. Instead, I would recommend trying to change our minds instead, and maybe we'd all benefit from that endeavor.

So all skateboarders are drug-addicted anarchists? And all Pokemon enthusiasts are regressive man-children living in their parents' basement? Despite my obvious biases, I'm sure that's not the case. And I'm equally sure that at least some police officers are brave people who sincerely want to protect their communities - and don't beat their wives.

Why would you say he's going after a 14 year old girl and not protecting a group of 14 year old girls? Who is really the victim here? Why does your concern for well-being only extend to the person with the transgender identity?

Rachel Dolezal identifies as a black woman, and she worked tirelessly to advocate for that community for most of her adult life. Yet when she was discovered to be a biological white woman, she was castigated and cancelled. Why do we accept some forms of self-identification and not others?

Hmm, I wonder if we can we make broad, sweeping statements like that about some other really large groups of people. How about dentists - they're pretty, weird, am I right? Or maybe skateboarders? Pokemon enthusiasts? Jews?

Oh, is that what that word means? I had to look it up. It said, "bigoted (adjective): having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others."

Ok, let me try to use it in a sentence: because they were unable to meaningfully engage with the content of his viewpoint, the bigoted redditors resorted to insulting and defaming the police officer instead.

How did I do?