Human Sex is binary: a lesson for TRAs
Imagine a factory that makes ships and airplanes. Thatâs all they make. This factory is a completely closed off and automated system. If left alone it produces roughly 50/50 ships and planes, but nobody can really control which is being produced.
Sometimes, a ship comes out with a propeller, or a plane comes out with a sail. But these are mistakes. The computers sent the wrong instructions or the robotic assembly arms malfunctioned.
No one says the factory produces an infinite spectrum of products. They make planes and ships. Thatâs it. They donât make shlanes or plips.
That is because a plane with a sail or a ship with a propeller is less able to fly or sail. These mistakes in assembly are detrimental to the functioning of the ship or plane.
Q&A
Well what if the product that comes out of the factory is such a mishmash of plane and ship parts you canât tell whether it was supposed to be a ship or a plane?
Luckily there are engineers at the factory whose entire job is analyzing the mistakes the factory makes. There are only so many kinds and by looking at the finished product, checking the computer readout, and checking the robotic arms, they can tell exactly what went wrong. Itâs also important to bear in mind that all but a handful of mistakes are not at all ambiguous. Most of the time itâs still very easy to tell if the product was supposed to be a ship or a plane.
But the factory in the next town makes sea planes! So clearly itâs possible to have a functional ship and plane combination!!
The factory in the next town can make sea planes because their factory has the correct materials and the correct instructions to make sea planes. Our factory does not. Their sea planes will be fully functional whereas ours would not be. Because our factoryâs computers donât have the instructions to make a sea plane.
What if they assign me a plane when I really wanted a ship? Are you going to tell me how Iâm allowed to feel about that? Or are you going to stop me from attaching a sail to my plane and calling it my boat if that makes me happy?
What you wanted doesnât change what you got. You received either a plane or a ship like everyone else in town. And there is a 99.99% chance that you received a plane with zero ship parts. If you want to weld a sail to your plane and call it a ship no one can stop you. But you canât park it at a marina. You canât enter your plane into a boat race. You canât demand all conversations about ships center your plane.
Okay enough with the metaphor, people arenât planes and ships and our value isnât based on how functional we are!
Correct! As human beings our value is infinite. But that is because we ascribe value to human life. Biology is amoral. Itâs ascribes no values. It only tells us if a person has a disorder. It cannot tell us the value of that person. I hope everyone reading this agrees with me that people born with any kind of disorder still have infinite value. I have ADHD/Autism, both are detrimental to my ability to function. But they do not lower my value as a person.
Ok, so you did not just debunk scientific consensus on sex being bimodal by creating an extremely clunky analogy to sexual development.
An automated factory can theoretically mass produce near exact copies of a certain plane or a certain ship. Humans do not reproduce and sexually develop in the womb in that way at all, with the exception of identical twins. The process of developing into a male or female is never the exact same for each person. We receive varying levels of hormones based on our chromosomes that help us develop our sex organs that usually puts most people squarely in the male/female range, but where we land on that range exactly is notably different than others. This is why we all hit puberty at different times, why some men naturally have more body/facial hair than others, why women have wider hips and bigger chests than others. There has never been such a thing as being âexactly maleâ or âexactly femaleâ, itâs all been on a spectrum.
A binary, by definition, doesnât have outliers, doesnât have âmistakesâ.
Thatâs the dumbest thing Iâve ever heard.
Please PLEASE tell me you donât think that a man with more body hair is more male than a man with less body hair. Or that a woman with bigger hips is somehow MORE female than a woman with narrow hips.
Are Italian men therefore more male than Asian men? Is a Slavic woman less female than an African woman born with less body hair? Your idiotic logic gets racist really fast.
The puberty thing is even dumber. Am I more female than my sister because I got my first period at 11 and she got it at 12 or vice versa? Does my brother get more âmaleâ points based on his first patchy beard or when his voice dropped?
I have PCOS but my sister has endometriosis. How does that shift us on your spectrum? Am I less of a woman than other women?
Youâre bugging out right now because you are hardcore philosophically loading in a bunch of stuff as to what it means to be a man or woman, (or male and female) without actually engaging with anything that Iâm saying.
I am specifically talking about sexual development, and how we currently understand the male/female spectrum as a biological concept. You are currently only understanding males and females through the lens of gender.
So no, a man with more facial hair is not âmore maleâ than a man with less. A woman with wider hips is not âmore femaleâ than a woman with narrow hips.
The way we understand sex as a biological concept is that you are male or female and differences in things like menarche and body hair and hormones do not make sex a spectrum. Because a woman with PCOS is not on a different point of the spectrum than a woman without it. They are just both women. Of you disagree with that then yes, you are saying a woman can be more or less female than another one. Thatâs what a spectrum is.
You are a moron. You think Iâm arguing about the social concept of gender when Iâm talking exclusively about primary and secondary sex characteristics.
Gender is saying women are nurturers and men are leaders.
Sex is saying women are the sex that produces large gametes. Sex does not ascribe value or personality or preferences. It is an observation of material reality.
Idiocy is saying that getting your period at a different time than another woman means sex is a spectrum.
And further more, youâre a man that compared buying a woman dinner to paying for OF which means your opinion is less than worthless.
You clearly view all women as objects for sale, you gross creep. Iâm not surprised you donât seem to understand sex OR gender.
âBeing on a different point in the spectrumâ and âJust being a womanâ are not mutually exclusive concepts. I donât know how else to explain it, I think Iâve been pretty clear.
You can either choose to engage with what Iâm actually saying or donât. And for the most part, youâre currently choosing the latter, so I donât know what else to say to you.
You canât explain it because itâs nonsense. Either all women are exactly as female as every other woman (because they are all on one side of a binary) or some women are more female than others (because they are on a spectrum). Thatâs reality. They are in fact mutually exclusive if you arenât brain dead.
Anyway youâre a gross misogynist creep thatâs also an idiot with zero understanding of science so please fuck off and die in a tiger pit.
ok, what makes a woman "exactly female"? what's the defining trait(s)?
In 99.99% of cases itâs a vagina and XX chromosomes.
A man is someone with a penis and XY chromosomes in 99.99% of cases.
In 99.99% of cases sex is immediately apparent and easily observable. A healthy body is male or female. Intersex conditions cause health issues. Some can be severe. All are still classed as male or female disorders.
The entire problem is you people want to sit around and whine about definitions that leave zero room for interpretation. But thatâs impossible. Language is limited by its very nature. No single word can eliminate every other definition neatly.
âBehold a man!â You say holding aloft a plucked chicken. Not understanding that the entire reason that âjokeâ lands is because you effortlessly understand that a plucked chicken is not a man. Because you are human capable of abstract thought. Because you are capable of reason.
You donât actually need me to explain what a male and female are. What you are actually saying is that because 0.001% of the population have a disorder of sexual development, Iâm not allowed to tell men that donât even have those conditions that they canât shower with women at the gym.
Iâm not interested in your rare medical cases and your word games and your bastardization of science. By definition a trans woman is male. Thatâs what makes a person TRANS. And in 99.99% of cases there is zero ambiguity of their biological sex.
I am here in the real world. Where 500 cases GLOBALLY of ovotesicular disorder does not mean we suddenly donât know which sex rapes, murders, molests, and harasses which. Here in the real world we donât make laws based on your misunderstanding of an âInto to Philosophyâ exercise.
To circle back to my original point, this is why we don't consider sex as a binary. If it was a binary, you should be able to point to a single trait on a female and go, "This trait here in 100% of cases is what makes someone female, no exceptions." Not even 99.99% cuts it.
I'm not whining about definitions that leave zero room for interpretation. I'm fully aware that *all* definitions to some degree or another, leave room for interpretation. But to my understanding, a binary does not consist of exceptions, or mistakes, or outliers, or anomalies, no matter how minuscule it may be.
You claiming that "sex is binary" and that there is such a way as being "exactly female" invokes the idea that you believe that there is in fact 0 room for interpretation in understanding what being a woman is and how sex works. The only one who's whining here is you, when I push you on that claim.
If the only way to shut you up is by giving you a singular definition despite you insisting thatâs not what you want, I can do that too!
Since female is the default and a fetus will only develop as male if there is an active SRY gene then I think itâs very easy to say that a woman is someone without an active SRY gene.
Or since female is the default, itâs clearer to say that a man is someone with an active SRY gene.
That pretty neatly accounts for even âtrickyâ disorders like CAIS, where the SRY gene is present but not active. It also neatly excludes the phenotypic male with XX chromosomes because of a rare genetic mutation where a second X chromosome absorbs the Y and therefore the active SRY gene.
Funnily enough that pretty much brings us back to vagina=female and penis=man
đ¤
Lmao
So were you just joking about the 99.99% claim and you actually believe that a woman 100% of the time, with no exceptions, is someone without an active SRY gene⌠or have you just never heard of mixed gonadal dysgenesis before
Actually asking, does a person with this condition that presents with external female genitalia have an active SRY gene? A cursory look shows me it mostly affects males because itâs a malfunction of the Y chromosome. You understand that the SRY gene is distinct from a Y chromosome, right? Is it possible that like women with CAIS the SRY gene is inactive in these cases?
To my understanding the SRY gene is not always completely absent, active, or inactive the way it normally is, but can be mutated that causes some kind of partial expression of the gene which can lead to the formation of ambiguous genitalia, which affects both males and females, but mostly males as you initially pointed out.
For instance, a female with an enlarged clitoris that resembles a penis may be dealing with such a SRY mutation.
It looks like what youâre describing is either called Turnerâs Syndrome (45XO) or Swyerâs Syndrome (46XY) where ovaries fail to form. Both these conditions are called FEMALE DSDs.
âDespite having the XY chromosomal makeup, girls with Swyer syndrome look female and have functional female genitalia and structures including a vagina, uterus and fallopian tubes.â
But letâs take a second and say I agree with you. Congrats! Iâve conceded that sex isnât a 100% binary and despite medical specialists seemingly being quite able to tell the difference between an enlarged clitoris and a micro penis weâre going to go the root where we turn off our brains because this topic canât be reduced to a gotcha one liner.
Why does it follow that fully normal men with normal male development and XY chromosomes are fully female because they say so? So what if 0.001% of humans are exceptions to the binary (sorry âbimodalâ).
Letâs take it back to my metaphor. You receive a vehicle that is mostly plane, but because its underside is ship shaped and its wings are missing it makes it easier to store it at a marina. Why does it follow that anyone with a completely normal plane should therefore be allowed to park at the marina? Why should all the laws of ship and plane travel change to erase the difference between ships and planes?
I get that you really like ships and planes, but it really is such a clunky analogy to sex and gender lol but Iâll try.
What is a plane? âď¸ What is a ship? đ˘
Are they just an amalgamation of specifically crafted parts made from various materials? Or are they the function that they serve?
Is what you just described, a vehicle that is mostly plane, but with a ship shaped underside, and no wings, still a plane? Or more effectively a ship, since it can only sail and not fly?
What if you take a normal functioning plane, and reconstructed it into the shape of a ship? Is it still a plane because perhaps you can still see the parts that make up a normal plane? Or is it a ship because of its newfound overall shape and function?
What are words? What are parts? What does âwhatâ mean? Are people even people or are we like, imaginary man. Does anything mean anything or is this all a dream in some aliens head?
Thatâs all like, so deep dude. Are you looking forward to being a sophomore this fall?
I told you your analogy is way too clunky lol
To explain it more plainly, no analogies needed, a woman is someone, in the most essentialist of ways, is someone who looks like a woman to you, based on the culmination of all the knowledge and experience that you have with them.
When you step outside, and look at a woman, youâre not looking at her reproductive organs, or her chromosomes, you observe her overall gender expression. The clothes sheâs wearing, her body shape, the way she fashions her face and hair and think, âok, thatâs a woman.â
Thereâs even a possibility that youâll pass by a trans woman and come to that exact same conclusion without realizing sheâs trans. It may have already happened to u, who knows.
And I can see a coyote from a distance and think âthatâs a dogâ but that doesnât mean itâs safe to pet. Same idea with a man Iâve mistaken for a woman. Misidentifying something doesnât change what it is.
I donât want to be protected from perceiving men. I want to be actually protected from the class that violently attacks mine regularly.
Once again this is a thought exercise to you because you donât face the material consequences. So you have the privilege of sitting around and saying âwHaT eVeN iS a wOmAnâ đ¤Ş
I mean, even if it was an actual dog, that wouldnât automatically make it safe to pet either but ok lol you really need to work on making good comparisons that actually support your point.
And I donât know what you wanting to be protected from men has anything to do with trans women. Even if you have your way and somehow remove all trans women from society or whatever, that wouldnât make you more protected, you would still be in just as much danger as anybody else getting by in this world.
And I donât know where you get this idea that this is just a âthought exerciseâ to me, as if I donât personally know any trans people, and the dangers and discrimination that they face from people who subscribe to your way of thinking.
If youâre unclear on the very specific and often talked about reasons that trans activism specifically harms women, and precisely what feminists hope to achieve, feel free to read up on that.
Telling women that male violence is inescapable and therefore we shouldnât make any attempt to reduce it where we can isnât the slam dunk argument you people think it is.
Getting rid of trans people wonât reduce male violence at all, it is a red herring women wearing the facade of feminists like you have bought into because itâs a contentious topic that you actually feel as tho you could make a meaningful difference in, rather than actually focus on doing the hard work and meaningfully advocate for womenâs safety in other ways, including ways that involve engaging with men, and not just making us out to be the ultimate bogeyman or whatever.
Luckily for both of us my goal is not getting rid of trans people. My goal is for biological males to not treat a boundary like oppression. Being asked to use a menâs changing room will not cause trans women to disintegrate.
And itâs cute that you think my advocacy for women begins and ends with trans activist BS.
A boundary, by definition, is restrictive, and even potentially oppressive.
Not allowing blacks and whites to go to the same schools, or use the same bathrooms is a boundary.
Not allowing women to work or own property is a boundary
Not allowing gay people to marry is a boundary.
Not allowing trans women to be treated like women is indeed also a boundary, and it is a boundary with the intent to delegitimize trans people as a concept, and effectively getting rid of them.
Segregation was the oppressive class using LAWS upheld by a racist police force to stop black people from entering higher education, high paying careers, and politics. Black women were not and are not the primary oppressors of other women. So fuck off with your racist ass comparison.
Not allowing women to work or own property isnât a boundary. I know words donât mean anything to you people but women were LEGALLY kept second class citizens. Getting things like our own bathrooms were hard won. Do not fucking compare being PROPERTY to not getting to use the WOMENâS bathroom.
Not allowing gay people to be same sex attracted in peace is one of the problems TRAs are guilty of RIGHT NOW. And anti gay marriage laws were never a boundary.
Every single thing you listed was an example of the oppressor class using their power to make marginalized groups second class citizens.
What youâre whining about is far closer to a white person complaining that a Black college wonât admit them. Or that a scholarship for MÄori people is âexcludingâ white people.
It isnât exclusion when a marginalized group protects its spaces. It IS when itâs the oppressor class. Thatâs why an all black gym would be about safety and community but an all white gym is for fucking Nazis.
You can try and tell me Trans women just want to pee but Iâve seen dozens of videos and pictures of them with raging hard ons bragging about being in the ladies room. Or masturbating in them. There is a tag on tumblr called âterfbreakingâ and another called âdyke breakingâ where hundreds of trans women fantasize about raping and âfixingâ women that donât want to fuck them.
You donât get to tell me one group of men is above criticism or analysis because they put on lipstick. Sorry not sorry.
You can cry and whine all you want over what a boundary is, but nothing that you said disproved a single point that I made. But thanks for whitesplaining racial segregation to me, that was a good meme lol
If you want to justify getting rid of trans women because you think they're all sexually deviant predators pretending to be women, that's fine, you can make that argument, but don't be a spineless coward and pretend as though that you're advocating for these boundaries with no intent to discriminate against and delegitimize a minority group who feel deserve such persecution.
Ah yes, men, the terribly oppressed minority that have never harmed women ever.
Lmao I donât even know where to begin with your delusional takes
Do u think most men are trans women?
Do you think a minority individual has never harmed someone from the majority before?
And to your point about womenâs spaces, do you think there arenât thousands upon thousands of porn videos of cis women masturbating in bathrooms or changing rooms? Do you think cis women never engage in any sexually predatory behavior, at all? What kind of planet do u think youâre living in where you think women are all these docile creatures who are incapable of any wrongdoing?
1) not all men are trans but all trans women are male
2) males are not a minority and they are the number one danger to women. Putting on a dress statistically makes them more likely to be dangerous to women, not less, because AGP behavior is strongly correlated to violent behavior. So many serial killers cross dressed that Wikipedia deleted the article listing them all because it was a bad look. Males with a fetish are even more dangerous than men without them. Men demanding access to vulnerable women are automatically less trustworthy than ones that arenât. The rare homosexual male that suffers from clinically diagnosed extreme dysphoria is no longer the person activists mean by âtrans womanâ. It has long since become a movement of heterosexual men that love their dicks and have a cross dressing and lesbian fetish.
3) cis women masturbating in bathrooms is probably a porn category. Nearly everything is thanks to sick men. Abused, coerced, and trafficked women masturbating on a closed set for male audiences is in no way analogous to videos and pictures of trans women filming themselves deliberately violating a public space because they get off on the lack of consent as an individual.
4) you can be locked in a room with a rabid wolf or a dog. Only an idiot would say âwell not all dogs are safe so I choose the rabid wolf!â Men commit 99% of sexual assaults and commit 98% of sex crimes. They commit 85% of all violent crime GLOBALLY. I donât need to think women are flawless angels to see that males pose waaaaaay more of a risk.
Men are the number one to danger to *other men* and little boys! Do u think thatâs a justifiable argument to ban ourselves from our own spaces?
Actually, you donât have to answer that, I already know that u donât care about boys being victimized, even if it ends up harming women as a downstream effect, never mind.
But this has nothing to do with trans women, you have no idea what youâre talking about!
Cross dressing serial killers were never trans women. Men with fetishes are not trans women. A homosexual man with dysphoria is not a trans woman. You can incorrectly think that trans women are men pretending to be women all you want, but just know that you barely have a foot to stand on with any of this, because your understanding of what a man or woman even is is questionable at best, with no willingness to be open minded or explorative, or men and women are just reductive caricatures to you at worst, and anybody who steps outside of your imagined caricature is just âpretending to be something theyâre notâ or some sexual degenerate, whether itâs a trans person or some GNC person in general.
Men have to solve their own problems instead of blaming them on women. I never see men interested in male victims until itâs time to shut down a woman speaking.
Itâs very convenient that any trans identifying person that makes the community look bad is not trans but up until the moment they hurt someone they are uwu special trans woman that just want to pee.
And what caricatures? Lmao. The âcaricatureâ of being biologically female?
Bestie it is YOUR ideology that equates behavior and appearance with bio sex. Not me! Men and women can dress however they like, act however they like, have mannerisms that suit them, paint their nails, cut their hair.
Idgaf. You just canât change your sex. Thatâs it.
Unironically yes, you can caricaturize biological sex. Itâs a TERF staple.
It is YOUR ideology that is so paranoid over trans people that you even harass your own female sisters if they look too âmale.â
She stayed cool, calm, and collected as she recorded a stranger's demand that she identify her gender.
So your evidence that Iâm caricaturing bio sex is a picture TRAs made and a woman that isnât even a little bit androgynous looking got shit from some random lady in Vegas?
Iâm old enough to remember a world before trans ideology. Back then butch women often were challenged on their bathroom use. This isnât a new phenomenon. Whatâs new is bio women have no good way to reassure other women they arenât a threat and women KNOW men can waltz in any time so there is increased paranoia.
Believe it or not a lot of âTERFsâ are butch women and they have shared personal experiences with scaring women in public bathrooms. They all say the same thing. Trans ideology and self ID laws means women that are more scared and harder to reassure.
You guys are always like âbut what about butch women!â Like radfems arenât exactly those women.
Cis women *have never* had a good way to reassure others that they arenât a threat, even before you guys lost your mind over trans people. You just admitted as much.
Men could waltz into womenâs spaces just as easily before âtrans ideology.â Women were preying on other women, or getting confused for men, before âtrans ideology.â Safety and protection is not guaranteed for *anyone*, man or woman.
Believing that trans women are the Horcrux of all that is evil, and getting rid of them will return us to eternal paradise is beyond delusional, especially if you are a woman *who has already* been harassed for looking âtoo male.â You should be wanting to combat against this paranoia, not feeding more into it.
I donât think trans women are the âhorcruxâ of all evil (lmao did you mean the crux of all evil??)
I think MEN commit 85% of all violent crimes and 95% of all sex crimes. I think males commit most of the evil in this world and the overwhelming statistics back me up. And trans women are male. They arenât special, I believe them to be exactly as evil as cis men. No more, no less.
And yes actually it used to be simple to say âoh Iâm a woman actuallyâ and that usually worked. Not always but usually.
Prior to trans ideology, if an obvious male person came into a place where women are vulnerable, like a bathroom or a support group or a shelter, you used to be able to make them leave.
Before all this if a man walked into the bathroom I could say âget out or Iâm calling the cops/securityâ Now women canât do that. And itâs created a scary situation for cis women. Now we have to actually wait until he becomes aggressive or tries to hurt someone. And even then you might still be labeled a bigot.
If youâre like the girls in that sorority, youâll get called a bigot and have your life ruined even if the male they forced you to accept starts walking around with an erection and staring at people. Or asking constant sexual questions.
Or maybe you can be like those women that got racist abuse for calling out that man at the spa who turned out to be a sex offender with multiple offenses.
Women can absolutely still bully people out of their spaces. They might be justified in doing so in some cases. Maybe not so much in other cases. Like you said, women have been doing this even before people lost their mind over âtrans ideology. â
You might be labeled a bigot for it, sure. If you deliberately target a trans woman or butch woman, that could get u called a bigot. Even on accident could get u called a bigot. If you donât want that kind of smoke on you, then you just better be careful as to who you choose to target.
Woooow
And the mask comes off. Took a few days but it always does.
âIf you donât want to be called a bigot, be careful who you targetâ
Meaning that women that get called a bigot for not wanting a dude with an erection leering at them âdeserve itâ right? After all they âtargetedâ the super special man. A woman should think twice before she challenges a man, that fucking bitch Karen!
This is ultimately what it comes down to. Women say âmen hurt usâ and men say âwell then you better be careful to never give us reason toâ like that isnât absolutely a threat.
Because thatâs what you just did. You just made a threat that women that donât give trans women their due deference âbetter be carefulâ. You people arenât slick.
I think Iâve qualified all of my statements enough.
If you want to conflate a trans woman minding her own business and a man with an erection out leering at other women as both equally creepy, thatâs on you.
The point is, is that both of those men look exactly the same until AFTER the sex crime. There is no way to tell them apart. One is not a âman with an erectionâ while the other is an âuwu trans womanâ
They both identify as trans women. Unless you think self ID isnât valid.
Yea, that tends to be the defining characteristic of a criminal, when they do a crime.
And no, there tends to be more to being a woman than just self idâing as one, thatâs also true for trans women.
So you agree with TERFs then? Self ID shouldnât be enough to be legally considered a woman?
No, TERFs donât believe trans women should be able to legally change their gender under any circumstances.
The legality question isnât even that relevant to this convo. Youâre more concerned with, âHow do I tell apart a trans woman from a predatory male?â
And the truth is, there is no perfect answer to that question. Anybody could be a predator, including the most gorgeous cis woman youâve ever seen. Anybody could look male, even cis women. Thatâs just the world we live in.
All I can tell you is that even if youâre able to âclockâ a trans woman in the bathroom, you should be able to notice whether or not they put in significant effort to appear female. The more effort theyâve put in, the less suspicious you should be of them.
Legality and practical solutions are the ONLY topic. It is very relevant. And I donât believe you can tell the difference of who is a predator by looking at them. Thatâs my whole point. It was very clear. If you arenât even smart enough to follow what Iâm saying what the point of this? My entire point the WHOLE TIME is that the reason you canât tell a predator from an uwu trans woman is because they are the same male bodied people. Itâs why the only solution is to keep MALES out. Because there is no way to tell!
And I love Iâm supposed to trust trans women more if they pass better. Do you think if a trans woman is masc or doesnât pass they are invalid or more likely to be a creep?
Also I do in fact have an incredibly easy way to tell predators apart from non predators. Itâs called being male and committing 98% of sex crimes!
Iâm saying that the legality aspect of this convo isnât relevant because I know youâre not interested in legally validating trans women at all.
If you think the only predators in existence are solely those born with a penis, you are more blind to predators than your average person.
Newsflash, there are countless amounts of ways to prey on people that doesnât include physical violence, as you seem to assume.
And itâs not necessarily a matter of âtrustâ that you need to have with trans women. You shouldnât be 100% trusting of any stranger at all, even if they have the same genitalia as you. Itâs all about managing your suspicions in an appropriate manner. You may not be perfect at it. You may bully a trans woman out of the bathroom one day, maybe even a butch lesbian, who knows. Take my advice or leave it, itâs your life.
Iâll leave your advice and continue advocating for men to not be allowed unrestricted access to women, thanks!
Thatâs not what you advocate for but ok lol
