Your half-assed philosophy speech isn't doing much for me. I watch French movies when I'm in the mood for pretentious sanctimony.

"But earlier you claimed you did that because it was a personal to you.
Now you're claiming the opposite - that you're using it impersonally as a
generic term."

I didn't write that, so please read it again.

Men regularly interchange words like "guys" and "dudes" for people, so I make an effort to do the same. Typically, only Red Pillers and pedants have an issue with it. I had to explain it three times so…

The only part with punctuation, aside from the sarcastic quotation marks.

Again. I am using women and people interchangeably. You're humping this point like a horny dog, because the rest of your argument is monstrous. I'm done arguing it.

"I quoted you claiming I had an agenda against women."

Wow.

Thank you for putting it far better than I could.

Where did I lie? You've divorced those quotes from context. It's really bizarre what you are doing here.

Again, so what? As I said I think about the issue in personal terms. I'd be happy to edit it into a gender neutral phrasing, if that will keep you from derailing in the most eye rolling manner possible.

I'm not claiming you have an agenda against women.

"It seems like you're reading a fuck of a lot of stuff into my words which aren't actually there."

I'm going to just assume you're trolling and move on.

Those seems like questions specific to the individual.

If it's "play" then it's fantasizing about rape which according to you is also unhealthy.

Rape-play is one aspect of the BDSM world.

You're judging people based on their sexual kinks. You're the one bringing the baggage. You've decided that people's desires are slaves to society. This is unhealthy, or perhaps you mean to say unclean.

"Why the hell do you keep making it about women? I'm talking about rape fantasies, and you keep gendering it."

It's her own characterization of her behavior over the course of a decade. It's indefensible.