Though the examples don’t matter, they do fit.
Everyday arguments regularly leave some premises unstated.
Kafka trap conditions
They are an enemy of the government.
If they object to the policy, then they either hate non-binary gender identities or are secretly non-binary.
If they object to the policy, then they are racist.
Whether they affirm or deny the implicational conditions doesn’t matter.
If they affirm, then the condition (trivially) follows.
If they deny, that’s taken as evidence the condition is true.
Then (by affirming the antecedent they object to the policy) their consequents follow.
I can’t stress enough that your own source says that a Kafka trap is when someone saying “I’m not X” is used as evidence that they are in fact X.
The first example fits. The fact that the person said they aren’t an enemy of the state is used as evidence that they are in fact an enemy of the state.
In the latter two examples, the evidence that a person is in some way bigoted has nothing to do with their claims that they aren’t bigoted.
A school system system implements progressive policies and explains that these policies are intended to improve tolerance of non-binary gender identities. If a parent has concerns that these policies may be resulting in unintended consequences, this is evidence that the parent either hates non-binary gender identities or is secretly non-binary.
How is this an example of someone saying they aren’t X, and that assertion being used as evidence that they are X? The parent in this situation is not saying “I’m not against non-binary people” and then being accused of being against non-binary people because they said that. They’re against policies intended to improve the lives of non-binary individuals, and being accused of being against non-binary people because of that.
Any parent who is not arguing against these policies could make the claim that they are not against non-binary people, and would not be accused of being against non-binary people because of it.
A policing service implements progressive policies and explains that these policies are intended to improve social justice. If a citizen has concerns that these policies may be resulting in unintended consequences, this is evidence that the citizen is racist.
The citizen in this example is not being accused of being racist because they said they aren’t racist. They’re being accused of being racist because they’re against these progressive policies. Any citizen who is not against these progressive policies would not be accused of being racist if they also said that they aren’t racist. These aren’t Kafka traps, by the web page’s own definition.
I can’t stress enough that your own source says that a Kafka trap is when someone saying “I’m not X” is used as evidence that they are in fact X.
Here’s the definition again.
A Kafka trap is a fallacy where if someone denies being x it is taken as evidence that the person is x since someone who is x would deny being x.
Note the keyword if: this definition concerns a conditional statement.
Affirming the conditional statement doesn’t require affirming the antecedent.
What if they are x?
Conclusion trivially follows.
If they aren’t, then they’ll deny.
Neither possibility asserted?
Doesn’t matter, because conditional statement is asserted: all possibilities lead to same conclusion.
That’s the fallacy.
Consider the conditional statement: if the moon is made of cheese, then we can eat it.
Is it true?
Yes.
Is the moon made of cheese?
No.
And then it lists two examples that don’t fit this definition. I get the feeling Debate Wiki isn’t the best primary source
Though the examples don’t matter, they do fit. Everyday arguments regularly leave some premises unstated. Kafka trap conditions
Whether they affirm or deny the implicational conditions doesn’t matter. If they affirm, then the condition (trivially) follows. If they deny, that’s taken as evidence the condition is true. Then (by affirming the antecedent they object to the policy) their consequents follow.
Another comment shows a treatment in symbolic logic.
I can’t stress enough that your own source says that a Kafka trap is when someone saying “I’m not X” is used as evidence that they are in fact X.
The first example fits. The fact that the person said they aren’t an enemy of the state is used as evidence that they are in fact an enemy of the state.
In the latter two examples, the evidence that a person is in some way bigoted has nothing to do with their claims that they aren’t bigoted.
How is this an example of someone saying they aren’t X, and that assertion being used as evidence that they are X? The parent in this situation is not saying “I’m not against non-binary people” and then being accused of being against non-binary people because they said that. They’re against policies intended to improve the lives of non-binary individuals, and being accused of being against non-binary people because of that.
Any parent who is not arguing against these policies could make the claim that they are not against non-binary people, and would not be accused of being against non-binary people because of it.
The citizen in this example is not being accused of being racist because they said they aren’t racist. They’re being accused of being racist because they’re against these progressive policies. Any citizen who is not against these progressive policies would not be accused of being racist if they also said that they aren’t racist. These aren’t Kafka traps, by the web page’s own definition.
Here’s the definition again.
Note the keyword if: this definition concerns a conditional statement. Affirming the conditional statement doesn’t require affirming the antecedent.
What if they are x? Conclusion trivially follows. If they aren’t, then they’ll deny. Neither possibility asserted? Doesn’t matter, because conditional statement is asserted: all possibilities lead to same conclusion. That’s the fallacy.
Consider the conditional statement: if the moon is made of cheese, then we can eat it. Is it true? Yes. Is the moon made of cheese? No.
(Re)learn logic.