Could be. Wish I could see the Judge's reasoning.

But why not consider the ethical implications of our meals?

But why didn't he convict on the "encouraging child abuse" charge?

"You don't even have to like animals to know that skinning and dismembering an animal that is still conscious is unequivocally wrong".

Yeah, there is no shortage to defensive, angry meat eaters who yell about "preachy" vegans (who appear to be just trying to quietly eat their lentils in peace).

"I wish we would have a longer discussion about all the migrant workers who pick our vegetables and the extremely low wages they are paid"

See, I don't call gay men faggots because that's the right thing to do, not because I'm concerned about how people view me.

"Things are not black and white." Exactly.

*blushes*

As I said, the policy would likely exempt your particular circumstances from repercussions. Based, as you say, on a reasonableness assessment. In other words, I didn't find your issues "irrelevant". Despite your gleeful use of exclamation points.

Hm. We might have a winner here, folks.

"It's not about the welfare of the students though."

Yeah, it's a big red flag. It's often followed by "As a white, straight, able bodied male, I'm experiencing dis-quim-in-ashun".

"Political correctness bad!" statements are a reliable litmus test for identifying assholes.

"I guess the welfare of students goes right out the window, but since this is a gendered issue, why am I even surprised?"

Right? It's gross. And scary.

JAQing off with the tangential "what ifs" are you?

I really think your conversation is best suited for the Womansplainer. For only $100 she will spend 40 minutes on twitter discussing your research questions and corollary assumptions.

"How do you set up a system where all faculty know if the random girl they met online or at the bar is a student at the university they work at?"

I hear ya. Some folks in this thread are alluding to that, which is lame but unsurprising.