The post suggests that there are only two options in the scenario: they are either secretly trans, or they are a bigot trying to belittle and insult trans women. They don’t leave any nuance for a different option. Dare I say that they have a rather binary way of thinking…
No, I read the “win/win” as listing there only being two possible scenarios. They are saying you either win or you win. “Win/win” reads as “win or win”, so there is your “either… or”, but even then you don’t need to say specific words to be able to imply exclusivity.
Example:
“You must be joking, and if not, then you are a fool” Notice how in that sentence I did not use “either/or”, yet I still implied only two possibilities? Well, that sentence is homogenous to the sentence in OP’s post. I just used “if/then” instead of “either/or”.
I’m not sure where you read that in this post, because I don’t see it.
The post suggests that there are only two options in the scenario: they are either secretly trans, or they are a bigot trying to belittle and insult trans women. They don’t leave any nuance for a different option. Dare I say that they have a rather binary way of thinking…
Ohhh, you read the “and if” as being exhaustive. If they said “either… or” then I’d be with you, but they just listed 2 possible scenarios.
No, I read the “win/win” as listing there only being two possible scenarios. They are saying you either win or you win. “Win/win” reads as “win or win”, so there is your “either… or”, but even then you don’t need to say specific words to be able to imply exclusivity.
Example:
“You must be joking, and if not, then you are a fool” Notice how in that sentence I did not use “either/or”, yet I still implied only two possibilities? Well, that sentence is homogenous to the sentence in OP’s post. I just used “if/then” instead of “either/or”.
You said “and if not” which is binary, but “if [predicate] [x] and if [predicate] [y]” is not generally exhaustive.