You said, and I quote, "Your interest is trans people. Not rapists."

I disagreed by saying, and I quote, "Not really. I'm just a bit of a stickler for staying on topic." And I offered to discuss rape more broadly somewhere where it was on topic.

Then, as if you hadn't heard what I said, you again, "I’m asking you why your priority is trans people. That’s what you want to talk about."

Hmm, what did I just say? Could it have been "I'm just a bit of a stickler for staying on topic."

So I protest, and...you again don't say anything about my answer. Maybe you think that because I wrote about cars and theft that I wasn't staying on topic? But it is on topic. It's an analogy. Analogies set up a parallel between two states of affairs with the idea that the similarities are great enough so that reasoning that works in one case also works reasonably well in the other, but where one case is for whatever reason easier to think about (more accepted, simpler, etc.) while the other case is the one you need an answer for.

So, yes, I literally answered your question. You literally ignored my answer. Now I've explicitly answered it again.

If you don't understand what is parallel in my analogy, just say so, and I'll explain in detail making each aspect clear.

Likewise, I don't understand what is relevant in your questions this time. How does knowing the answer one way or another influence our thinking about the original topic? So I am asking explicitly: how are your questions about car breakins and proof of rape relevant to the original topic (or to the fidelity of the analogy with respect to how it can aid our reasoning)? In case you've forgotten, Kari introduced a specific concern that people claim to have about trans rights (so, naturally, that concern seems like it should be on topic), but then never addressed that concern directly.