I don’t argue about whether women’s human rights are negotiable. They are not. They are sacrosanct. I don’t debate bigots. I shame them. > “We are in an unplea

I don’t argue about whether women’s human rights are negotiable. They are not. They are sacrosanct. I don’t debate bigots. I shame them. > “We are in an unpleasant situation. It’s probably going to require an unpleasant solution.” Well, as you’ve decided that basic human rights are now “optional,” let me propose a solution: Since misogynists like you and Nathan are clearly a threat to women’s safety and comfort — and since women’s safety is essential for building the kind of secure, family-oriented society you claim to care about — why don’t we abolish your right to life instead? Start a misogynist elimination programme. It would immediately reduce the threats women face, which are far more immediate and real than the hypothetical societal collapse you keep waving around. Or does the idea of sacrificing your own rights to “fix” society not sit as comfortably with you as sacrificing those of women?