Glorianny
Doodledog
If GN had a bookie's, I would be rich, as I would have bet a small fortune on you failing to recognise an allegory for what it is. Again, it was ever thus.
If that is meant for me I recognise an allegory. I also know when one is appropriate and if it's a clever one. Soaps and sexual orientation -inappropriate!
So have you 'been arsed' to read it now? You were declaring it 'completely untenable' before you'd even bothered, and now that you (presumably) have, you have decided it is 'inappropriate', as you appear to be reading it as a comparison.
I never know with you whether you really don't understand, or whether you are just trying to make it difficult for people to illustrate how things work by using an analogy by making it such hard work.
Let me explain. A direct comparison with something irrelevant, such as saying that criticising TRAs is equivalent to racism or homophobia is offensive, and often used as a diversion.
An allegory - taking one situation and describing it in terms of another - entirely different, one, is not making a direct comparison. The point is that it is indirect, so avoids being offensive (unless the subject matter is inherently so). By stepping outside of the original topic, an allegory can add complexity to a narrative and point out absurdities within.
Takeaway if the above is too long - my post was not making a direct comparison - nobody would compare soap opera allegiance with sexuality (or sexuality with so called 'gender', unless they were massaging figures to suit their own agenda).