I tend to be the sort that if I voice something akin to this subject and it gets twisted into an allegation, I'm going to explain what I mean more fully, or determine if the person just has an axe to grind, or at least take the time to examine their take and see if I should change my thinking on a subject. If they just have an axe to grind, I'm out because I don't have patience for zealots. If it was a misunderstanding, then it's easy to fix. It is also entirely possible that someone could come up with something I hadn't considered.

I'm old as fuck though. It makes me a bit more willing to listen than when I was younger and might have gotten het up over someone bringing up a tangent to a big issue. And, I'm also less willing to tolerate when someone is just looking for an argument by throwing an allegation and assuming the worst rather than just talking like a decent human being. I'm too old to argue with a zealot, so I just walk away. Even online, I have to be in a foul mood before I'll give energy to someone that's not acting in good faith with me as a fellow human being. In meat space, I have body language, tone and such to help make that determination, so I tend to walk away quicker (though often with an eye roll and some muttering about wasted time.)

Legit though, in the comic's scenario, there would be nothing that could come after the "but" that would be germaine. Hypothetically, yeah, a person could be coming up with something that wasn't going to negate the original statement. It just doesn't work out that way when it comes to discussion of marginalized peoples. Like, since I first became aware of humans being shitty to groups of humans they don't like, it's a thing. Nobody ever throws out "I support gays, but...", or "black people deserve civil rights, but..." without following up with something that works against their previous statement.

Folks bringing up stuff like your example? They're not going to say it the same way. "But" is used in a way that negates more often than not, and when it's about supporting a marginalized group, I have never seen anyone throw a but without negating their supposed support. Worse, it's fairly common in my experience that the "but" ends up being a dog whistle or outright bigoted.

Going back to the vegan example (and let me interject that this conversation has been really awesome, I love it when people engage the way you are), if someone says "but animal hormones", they're effectively saying that their belief in appropriate manufacture of medical products is more important than the rights of trans people to access gender affirming care.

If they didn't think that, they'd most likely, go with "and it sucks that trans people have reduced access to ethically sourced hormones". It's a different way of thinking about a given issue. There's ways to expand a conversation to include one's related thoughts without using a negating conjunction. You know in role play and improv, there's a guiding principle of "yes, and" instead of "yes, but"? It applies in this kind of situation, with the choice of but rather than and pointing to a less humorous situation.

Like, in running over this example, if I had an objection to the source of the hormones, my way of expressing it would come out "I support trans people. I really wish the pharmaceutical industry would support them in a way that reduces harm to animals as well. We can have both." That's the phrasing that came into my head when I put myself in that hypothetical vegan's place.

It's a different way of communication, it's a different way of thinking.