No ax-murders in this bunch. But, maybe _____s. Yikes!
DD,
Offering that someone is, "At least not an ax-murderer" is not saying someone should accept someone crossdressing because, "It's not as deviant as..." It's arguing a position is ridiculous by making an absurd statement to highlight how silly someone's position on a matter, such as crossdressing, is...
Someone can say, for example, "I hate the Democrats and all this stuff they've done to screw up the planet."
You can blow up on the subject, or, you can say, "Yeah, I hate what they've done with the weather this weekend; I was going to grill steaks, but the *******s ordered rain."
It's perfectly alright to compare ax-murdering to crossdressing when your point is that crossdressing is completley harmless, or, so harmless that making harsh judgements and taking rash actions is completely uncalled for.
After all, if I ax-murdered someone just once (Just once!), they're dead forever. On the other hand, if I crossdressed once, twice, a thousand times - no one died, and, you know what? Nothing of great consequence at all really happened.
People crossdress. There is no harm in it.
But, golfers... Now, there's harm! All those pesticides going into the rivers and steams and all that water and fuel wasted on useless short grass. And, the wasted space! Great parkland tied up for "a game" most people can't afford to play. At least not at the really good places...
So, he crossdresses?
At least he's not a golfer.