Frankly, I think the inability to think through to logical conclusions reveals itself every time a young woman says, "What difference does it make what the definition of "woman" is? Why does the word even need defining?"
I hear that a LOT. They don't seem to understand that the law operates based on definitions. There are many laws and regulations which reference "women." If the definition of "women" includes "men," then the law has been changed without actually going through the process of creating a change in law or regulation.
This is what is at the heart of the JY case, and they can't see it. They see only a one-off, a predator the law shouldn't apply to. But law doesn't work that way.
The level of critical thinking is abysmal. But standing in front of that lack are huge defense mechanisms around cognitive dissonance.
The Social Justice project has taken on a religious natiure, with overtones of Calvinism. To not be of the elect is to be exiled. And Calvinists can never know who is actually of the elect, so all must act as if they are, just in case, and all must police all, just in case.
Those who deviate go into the stocks to be humiliated and must forevermore wear the Scarlet T stitched onto their clothing.
What woman wants to be a sinner held in the hand of an angry god over a lake of fire? Or, like Anne Hutchinson, exiled to some place like Rhode Island?
And like all religions, Social Justice requires an ever-expanding list of sins to police because there must always be sinners to serve as object lesson to the rest.