As much of the rest of the thread has noted, it was mostly an aesthetic issue out of objectors, me included. I was simply generally talking about sexism and feminism in response to GDwarf.
And you can technically nonsensically disagree with anything while not disagreeing with anything ever, if we're going to play the true freedom game (In other words, I can be absurd and difficult if I so desire with complete freedom). I'm free to break logic after all, strictly speaking.
If we're going to get anywhere (i.e. contain the absurdity), ever, in conversation, we need to both hold the idea that the other party may agree or disagree and that they may have justification equal to or surpassing ours potentially in their agreement or disagreement, and as such I would suggest those be restrictions on our freedoms in order to uphold some form of logic and argument. How we evaluate argumentative merit to know the latter bit is something to talk about though, sure.
