Amadan
I will be here longer than you
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
I realize I'm beating a banned horse here, but couldn't resist.
but still somewhat, since those dark days of Hlynka (though a certain Amadan seems to relish the idea of bringing them back at least in part)
The Amadan who banned Hylnka multiple times and whacked his alts when he kept coming back? Granted Hylnka the poster was not the same as Hylnka the mod, but you really have no clue what you are talking about. Hylnka was pissed at me for not modding harshly enough. And I am not the most trigger-happy or least lenient mod here.
So does anybody know what happened to these people?
CWR did not have the most intelligent people, just the most vitriolic, the ones angry that they couldn't just type "Fuck my enemies!" over and over.
It became boring because you can only write "Fuck my enemies" so many times before it becomes stale even for rage-posters. Some of them crawled back here, as you did, others are no doubt fedposting in some other dank corner of the Internet.
Where can actual men engage in unrestricted intellectual discussion in a truly properly masculine fashion without effeminate finger-wagging jannies from California all too frequently interfering to whine about "antagonism"
I don't do this often, but... LOL.
Maybe it's just me, but long, rambling, whiney rants with parenthetical after parenthetical, like someone who can't actually come to a point or close a sentence, is not a very masculine way of writing. Seethe-posting about how much you hate thots, sending screeching tirades by modmail and DM, a wall of text where you try to get in all your little digs about your Internet slapfights with everyone, these are not characteristics of someone looking for manly and intellectual discourse.
Good luck in finding glowier pastures, though if CWR wasn't based enough for you, I suggest just touching some grass.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
What do they mean by death to America? I don't think they mean death to ordinary Americans. They mean death to neoliberal imperialists.
I am sure you would not apply this level of charity to Israelis chanting anti-Palestinian or anti-Muslim slogans.
When people are burning flags and chanting death to a country, they are not making a distinction between "neoliberal elites" and ordinary citizens of that country. It would not even be completely unreasonable to point out that if you think the "neoliberal elites" deserve death, then the people who vote for them and pay taxes to their regime are complicit. This was the justification for 9/11 and basically every other terrorist attack on American soil or against American civilians and military personnel.
When people say "Death to ____," they mean Death to ____, not some abstract and nuanced political objection to ____'s current political leadership.
I have no issue with them delivering death to people who are trying to infect the Middle East with gender studies
Which universities in the Middle East are pushing Western gender studies courses? Would love to know how those are going.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
It's not an easy question to explore in most spaces! TERFs mostly seem disgusted by our very existence and don't want to compromise at all.
I think TERFs are actually an example of the strained tolerance that @Spez1alEd spoke of. Most TERFs, if you actually talk to them, will tell you a story of having once been a pro-trans liberal or radical feminist who accepted trans womens' claims at face value and even thought they were "breaking the gender binary" and thus defying the Patriarchy. Then, for various reasons (many of which have been discussed here) they hit "peak trans" (a phrase they use akin to their "redpill moment") and started seeing trans women as men appropriating women's spaces.
Historically there may have been some TERFs who were always vehemently anti-trans, but radical feminists were (and to some degree still are) pretty divided on the trans issue. It's not as simple as "They're just disgusted by us and won't compromise."
I would argue JK Rowling (not really a TERF but for some reason now held up as the TERF Queen) falls into this category -- she was tolerant of trans people until she started questioning the ideology, and even after her infamous letter she was still clearly supportive of the right of trans women to live as women - just not the right to be legally considered women. To the degree she's become hardened and more belligerent in her stance now, it's probably from years of relentless attacks online - trans activists seem disgusted by her very existence and don't want to compromise at all.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
As far as I can tell orcs have never been rigidly boxed into a single alignment. They have always been presented with an evil alignment as the most common default for them, but anybody who says that orcs were ever presented as ontologically evil in all cases no matter what is telling a falsehood.
Even in 1st edition AD&D, no one thought "Alignment: Lawful Evil" meant there could be literally zero exceptions in all the multiverse, and the earlier editions of D&D were much more freewheeling in suggesting DMs just make up whatever they wanted ("rulings over rules"). People came up with reasons to have non-evil Beholders and Mindflayers, after all. The point of the trope is not that modern players think back in Ye Olden Days, it was Gygax Law that all Orcs must be Evil, but that a lot of players (remember, D&D was mostly played by young men, often tweens and teens) did take the rules pretty literally. Remember that Alignment Languages were a thing? (Don't know if they still are in more recent versions.) And Alignment itself was based on Moorcockian and Vancian ideas that implied they were mystical properties of the universe and thus a fundamental part of a character, not just a rough label to describe behaviors. There were complicated rules for changing alignments.
So in that context, labeling races in the Monster Manual as "Evil" was taken as a sort of metaphysical categorization. 5E, which as I understand it has moved towards a more "blank slate" model where races do not have attribute modifiers or alignments or class limitations, is largely a reaction against that.
"Hack and slash" gaming also existed, and described quite a few campaigns and convention games. It was so common as to be another trope. Of course this wasn't how the creators of D&D meant it to be, nor how it was presented in the books, and players and GMs frequently bemoaned "hack and slash" gaming. But they bemoaned it because it was common enough to generate semi-parodies like this.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
And this contradicts what I am telling you how? I know you love to think you have a gotcha that proves people are lying every time you find a single word that can be parsed in the most pedantic, literal fashion to contradict them, but reread what I wrote and then stop trying to die on a hill you already died on. "Always evil" monsters were a trope that was talked about in the 70s, it isn't something wokes discovered to make fun of on TVTropes in the 2000s. Dragon magazine published cartoons about it. People joked about it and made satirical adventures about at conventions. You are not being clever or getting applause from the crowd as you Au Contraire Mon Frere!
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
Sorry - meant "h". Apparently it's actually supposed to be lower-class dialect, though I distinctly remember a debate on a talk show many years ago where a Bostonian was arguing that "whether" is properly pronounced with an "h." Which is probably why a pretentious, aspirated "wh" sound registers more as an upper-class thing to me.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
Yes, the empirical observation within the post-op community is that it's not an issue. As good as the real thing! Okay, maybe not exactly as good, on average, but well within the cis range, certainly? Vaginas come in a huge variety and most people only get intimate with a few people in their life.
That's rather surprising to me, and it's counter to what I have heard, but since I have never been with a trans woman and am not about to go try one, maybe it's true. I can't help suspecting some self-delusion there, the same sort that I think leads trans women to think they pass better than they do. Of all the trans women I've ever seen, very few would fool me even with their clothes on, and those mostly with perfect lighting and a ton of makeup. ("But what about the ones you didn't notice because they fooled you?" you will ask, and I admit that's possible, but given that even the "really hot, passes well" ones like Blaire White still have a certain uncanny effect about them that you can't unsee once you notice it, I remain skeptical.)
But maybe it's true. Maybe most men wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I suppose eventually the technology will improve to the point where this is true.
If you can filter on whatever criteria you like, and exclude Christians and Democrats and Bisexuals, then it would seem crazy to say "oh, but you can't filter based on trans status"
But if you don't require people to actually list their religion, politics, and orientation, it would also seem crazy to say "oh, but you have to tell us if you're trans."
I don't think people should be required to state they are trans on dating apps, but I think people should be allowed to say they don't want to date trans people without being called bigots or booted off the app. There are apps just for Christian dating, for various ethnic groups, for conservatives, for Democrats, etc. They can't really keep others out, but it's kind of obnoxious and seems counterproductive to demand attention from people who clearly don't want you. Yet trans women keep doing this. Why? (Yes, that's an Al Jazeera link. I find that amusing.)
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
I think it's supposed to be mocking people with upper-class accents who pronounce the "w" in white.
Or it's referring to this chick.
(Despite her going viral a while ago, the only video I could easily find of her was from the Daily Wire. "Asian girl spitting while saying white people" uh... gives a lot of results in an entirely different genre...)
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
Well, it's the Motte, so a simple Bayesian prediction would have a much greater than 50/50 chance of being right...
I've been around for years now. I guess someone who doesn't read my posts might be unsure. But someone who's been hate-reading me enough to complain about me regularly probably is not.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
You don't have to call me a "they," I'm not non-binary.
The question wasn't "Why aren't you supportive of Ukraine?" It's "Why are you pro-Russia?" Those aren't the same thing.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
Do you particularly think there's likely to be bad faith charlatans that take HRT for years, socially transition, update their legal paperwork, and have surgery?
Taking HRT for years and getting surgery would be a pretty serious show of commitment. Almost all the bad faith cases I can think of are men who made minimal or no efforts beyond updating their paperwork.
(I can see how bad faith actors would enjoy "absolutely zero requirements", obviously)
If I, as a man, want to declare myself a woman, what requirements would you place on me to be considered actually a woman?
I mean, for a medical form, "Which of the following do you have: [ ] breasts, [ ] uterus, [ ] vagina, [ ] penis" doesn't seem particularly unreasonable?
So you basically want to abolish the distinction between sexes in normal English usage? Or else make "male" and "female" arbitrary labels that can be applied to anyone, according to how they identify? But definitely not words that distinguish between male humans and female humans as understood by biological science?
I think dating apps should probably sort "pre-op trans-women" into a different category, because people obviously care about penis -vs- vagina when it comes to dating.
They care about more than that. See, this is why I question the sincerity of even moderate trans people. I mean, if I am reading you correctly, you don't think someone should be able to filter out post-op trans women. Or if they do, you think that's some sort of irrational bigotry and they need to be identified as the transphobic bigots they are. Do you really, seriously think that a post-op trans woman is indistinguishable from a cis woman? I don't mean "Might pass in social situations." I mean a man who has actually been with women before could get intimate with a trans woman and not know the difference? Even if we stipulate that there might be some .1% of trans girls who could actually pass in that situation, surely you know that the other 99% absolutely will not. But as I understand it, most dating apps now basically don't allow either straight men or lesbians to say "No trans women, sorry," and if you try you will be kicked off. (Correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't used dating apps in forever.)
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
This is pretty low effort. At least make doomposting interesting and have something to say.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
It is really amazingly easy to put together a very long list of horrible things that basically any group has done. I'm absolutely positive I could give you a list of a hundred times TERFs made false accusations, or at least accusations with outrageously little evidence behind them. That does not mean that every TERF claim is false, of course, or even that most of them are.
Absolutely true, and is probably the origin of a large share of discussions here on the Motte. People will tend make a true observation ("Blacks are lower IQ and more criminal than whites, on average"; "women tend to be hypergamous"; "Jews have disproportionate influence in Hollywood and finance") and overgeneralize to fit their biases ("Blacks are violent and stupid "; "Women are faithless sluts"; "Jews control our society").
I've already acknowledged that the sensationalized stories are, well, sensational, and I know the vast majority of trans people are not waving their penises at women or trying to get them to wax their balls, or taking medals from them in sporting events. But the fact that a small number are, and the ones who aren't will not allow any sort of guardrails that might prevent this, means unfortunately you are basically siding with the predators.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
I was done with D&D by 3rd edition, so I didn't even know how they mucked with the alignment system in later editions. But Orcs are the go-to example because even in earlier editions, they were a canonically "evil" race, like many others, but the ones even normies were likely to have heard of.
The only other race with as much resonance over this issue were the Drow.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
I was there, son.
Orcs were actually Lawful Evil in 1st and 2nd edition, if I recall. But that wasn't the point (as you are perfectly well aware). Whether or not the TV Tropes phrase existed, the issue did.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
Bad GM. Should discuss player expectations. In most pseudo-medieval D&Dish settings, executing bandits is a perfectly Lawful Good thing to do.
Which ties back to the point above. You are right, people don't want to see the Federation turned into a fascist dystopia, they don't want to see Aragorn called a genocider, they don't want the Jedi turned into a corrupt space Nazis. The problem with the new shows is not that they are too gray, it's that the writers don't think about why they're "subverting" the narrative. (Or worse, they do, and it's malicious.)
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
Again, this seems like heat instead of light if we're talking about "this happened once".
I mean, definitely more than once. Graham Linehan and various TERFs have lengthy "This never happens" lists of times that happened. I don't because that's not my crusade, but I have certainly read about it happening enough that I don't think you can dismiss these as "Just that one crazy guy and not a pattern."
I'm sure there's been guys with erections in the men's locker room at least once as well? Sometimes those things happen involuntarily, and it's terribly embarrassing. I remember that much from my time as a guy.
C'mon, this is disingenuous. You know we are not talking about someone accidentally popping a boner.
In case it's not clear: if someone is deliberately making women uncomfortable, I think we should have procedures to deal with that. I don't think these procedures need to be gendered - I think women making other women uncomfortable, and men making other men uncomfortable is also a reality you've got to deal with there.
Okay, but how? Because in the case of our boner-popping trans woman making women uncomfortable in the locker room, "her" first line of defense will be "Of course I didn't have control over it and I wasn't doing it deliberately to cause anyone discomfort" (which would be hard to disprove) and her second line of defense will be "Women just need to get over seeing female penises in the locker room." It's easy to say "We should just have procedures to deal with bad actors," but we do. The problem is that trans (or trans-pretending) bad actors, specifically, are exploiting gaps in those procedures. A man who walks into a woman's locker room and waves his penis around will be dealt with quickly. A man who walks into a woman's locker room and waves his penis around and when challenged, says he's a woman and you're being transphobic - well, how do you suggest we deal with that? Because clearly "Use common sense and call the bearded dude with the smirk out for what he is" doesn't work.
I understand your desire to extend them the benefit of the doubt. But again, once you've declared that literally anyone can identify as a woman, especially if they don't have to prove they've made an effort at transitioning or even passing, how do you keep the bearded guy with a smirk out of the locker room? Maybe he really does identify as a woman and that smirk is the euphoria of finally venturing into the space she belongs? Sure, mostly these are sensationalized examples, but they happen - repeatedly - and when we aren't even allowed to accuse someone of being fake or "transitioning" for disingenuous purposes, aren't allowed to impose conditions or gatekeeping, you get huge loopholes that predators can and will exploit. Thus the anger you are seeing now.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
So, if I'm correct: You're fine using my preferred pronouns, letting me use the restroom I "identify" with, and (post-surgery) using the "appropriate" locker rooms and prisons?
I wouldn't say I am "fine" with it. I would be willing to use your preferred pronouns out of politeness, but mentally I'm always going to be annoyed at having to play along with (what I consider to be) your delusion. I am not one of those people who'd go out of my way to misgender you just to rub it in your face that I don't accept your self-identification, but I consider it to be a polite fiction we're all playing along with.
As for you using female restrooms, locker rooms and (assuming you lack a penis and are on HRT) prisons? Yeah, I guess, with the significant caveat that I think being treated as your preferred gender should be a privilege, not a human right, and it should be revokeable in the case of bad faith charlatans.
At that point, wouldn't it be easier to just say "female", though? Like, except for my ability to join a sports team (I'm too old for that stuff anyway), I look like a duck, I quack like a duck, why not just call me a duck?
The distinction between sex and gender has been discussed upthread. Many people are against recognizing this distinction; I am less so. I'd be willing to call you a woman (again, with the caveat that, you know, I don't really think of you as a woman), but "female" should have a meaning grounded in biological reality. My question is if you can just identify as "female," what word should we use to distinguish between the two (2) human sexes? Because I ain't calling people "uterus-havers" and "penis-havers."
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
The problem is, we get all that in real life. We look to entertainment to simplify and escape that sort of thing.
Mm, speak for yourself. Unambiguous Good Guys vs. Bad Guys can be fun sometimes, but not all of us want "simple" entertainment.
Introducing moral complexity and shades of gray doesn't mean you have to go all grimdark and nihilistic.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
The irony is in thinking it's progressivism that is making Star Trek grimdark. Of course I know some people think all liberality (even going all the way back to the Enlightenment) is an inevitable path to the grimdark authoritarianism we see today, but Star Trek was originally a very liberal vision. I guess technically it still is, unless you are one of us liberals who have become by modern progressive standards fascists. Though to be honest I haven't seen the last few shows or movies, so I only know what it's like from cultural osmosis and memes.
Also like you said, "but what if the bad guys aren't really all bad?" is not really the innovative question that some writers think it is. It basically just marks the boundary between entertainment and literary fiction. But if you're going the literary route, you need to know that it's a tough road that will not be fun to follow, and you'll lose most of your audience along the way. Putting that into a normal genre fiction piece will destroy it.
Strongly disagree with this. You can have complex, three-dimensional characters, like villains who have sympathetic motives or heroes who are flawed, in genre fiction. It doesn't all have to be black hats vs. white hats. "What if the bad guys aren't really all bad?" "What if Orcs aren't all evil?" "What if the Jedi fucked up?" Those are perfectly fine questions to introduce even into a genre set piece with bright lines between good and evil. The problem is not with introducing moral complication and nuance, the problem is with fundamentally rejecting the idea that "good" or "evil" exist, even within the context of a universe that was built on the premise of a conflict between Good vs. Evil. Deconstructing that and saying "Well, actually they're all just the same; Sauron vs. the Fellowship is like the Republicans vs. the Democrats, the Rebel Alliance vs. the Empire is like rooting for the Packers or the Cowboys... at the end of the day it doesn't matter who wins," that destroys the narrative unless you are just that level of cynical.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
I don't know who "most of us" is. There are problems I find intractable at present, yes, but that said, if you asked me if I'd rather live today or in the 60s (without any tricks like "You get to know the next 60 years of history and can make decisions accordingly," etc.) I would definitely choose today.
Reminds me of all the black people who insist America today is not even a little bit better for black people than in the days of slavery. I just flat-out don't believe they actually believe this.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
Meh. It was also pretty reactionary. I'll even say most of it's optimism comes from rejecting progress.
It's reactionary in the sense that, as harold says, Roddenberry himself (and probably most of the show writers) still had a positive view generally of democracy, law and order, American military power, and the military in general. But they assumed we'd continue down the progressive path on race relations, gender relations, abolishing inequality, etc.
So what? Things are what they are, not the direction and velocity with which they are moving. Woke progressives have no claim on Star Trek, whichis proven by them having to adjust it to fit their ideology, and breaking it in the process.
Well yes, my point is that the current woke movement is a rejection of the optimistic liberalism of the 60s. That wokeness is in fact very illiberal is not a new observation.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
It's ironic that you resent the latest Star Trek shows being unrelentlessly grimdark, which is true, because Star Trek was originally a very optimistic view of the future, but as @haroldbkny says above, that was largely a progressive worldview. Star Trek has always been very explicitly leftist, albeit center-leftist (the original premise being that progressive multicultural politics would transcend all and the Federation was basically a future United Nations, as the UN was supposed to operate and not as it really does). You are no doubt aware that it's famous for featuring the first interracial kiss on broadcast television, and many, many episodes from the various series have been essentially liberal talking points turned into sci-fi thought exercises (sometimes poignantly and sometimes in a very ham-handed fashion).
Gene Roddenberry was extremely liberal and very much "woke" by 60s standards. Deep Space Nine was not the first time that writers took a somewhat more critical view of the Federation and suggested maybe it wasn't the post-scarcity utopia that early series sunnily portrayed it as, but Star Trek was still supposed to represent a future that is positive and optimistic. Humanity will eventually get its shit together and work together as a species, and we will face external threats and have moral conflicts, but we'll resolve them rationally and humanely, and we'll be able to include other races as well, grant civil rights to androids, recognize the self-determination rights of less technologically advanced people, etc... All very liberal and woke, no?
The more recent series have felt like they were written by writers who resent this optimistic view of the future - specifically, the idea that a largely Western, liberal democratic society could actually produce something good. And so they have painfully deconstructed it, so now the Federation is shit, all the characters we knew and loved are dead or assholes, and there is certainly no "fun" to be had in a universe where Western Enlightenment still holds sway.
The path with Star Wars is similar though not as obvious because Star Wars was always less nuanced. It was a children's story of good vs. evil space wizards. The Jedi were never supposed to be perfect, but they were fundamentally good guys. But unproblemetized good guys (especially white men) are not in vogue any more, and must be deconstructed.
Thus we arrive at Rings of Power and the laughable "Orcs just want to raise their families in peace." The problem with this is not that the idea in itself is laughable. It's that the writers actually think they are doing something new and subversive here.
Look, way back in the 70s, D&D players were raising questions about the "Always Chaotic Evil" trope. Just why should every single Orc be born evil? Yes, in Tolkien they're "fallen" elves and basically a sort of artificial race, but in D&D and its many spin-offs, they were just another humanoid species and thus presumably had agency and free will, so.... Half-orcs were a playable race since the very early days, and they weren't required to be evil, so clearly Orcs don't necessarily have an "evil gene." Most explanations were something like "They're naturally brutish and stupid and live in a violent society" (raising all kinds of Implications that have become Discourse today), but even very non-woke D&D players in the 70s didn't find the idea of an Orc raised in a more civilized environment turning out to be a Paladin or something outrageous. And later games (Shadowrun, 1st edition published in 1988) and Orkworld (published by the insufferable John Wick in 2000) took an explicitly critical lens to the "always evil" trope and made all the races, if still archetypical, less stereotypical.
These "woke" writers everyone complains about aren't inventing anything new, is the problem, but they think they are the first people ever to have mind-blowing thoughts like "What if the Jedi got too arrogant?" or "What if Orcs aren't just mindless killing machines?"
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
So can we also safely assume that the man strutting around with their cock on full display in the men's locker room is also a bad actor?
Maybe, though I'd be more inclined to think he's just socially oblivious. Generally speaking, men aren't threatened by seeing other guys' cocks.
Is "strutting around naked" really an unusual thing to do in a locker room?
Walking naked from the shower to your locker, standing naked under the hair dryer, maybe standing naked in front of the mirror while you do your grooming, not really. But ambling around the room sporting an erection (a scenario I've read about happening more than once) would definitely strike me as "weird" if done to other men, and "bordering on threatening" if done to women.
I'm just saying I think if I saw a naked guy in a locker room, I could distinguish between "He is naked because he's in the process of dressing/undressing/showering" and "He is naked because he really wants me to see him naked."
Do you have any statistics there? Are trans women more dangerous than cis women? Are trans women more dangerous than cis men? All the statistics I've seen about assault and rape say that intimate partners are the major threat, not strangers in bathrooms.
My bad for the confusion there - I was specifically talking about trans women assaulting women in prison.
If I want to understand an issue, I consider news a terrible way to learn. Keep in mind that news reports are mostly heat, not light - the very fact that it made the news means it's unusual enough to report on that event.
This is fair, which is why I have tried to reserve some judgment. I don't like LibsOfTikTok style nutpicking, finding the very worst and most deranged examples of trans people and blasting them as examples of what "trans people" are like. Graham Linehan does the same thing - for all that I sympathize with a lot of his grievances, "Here's a trans person who committed a crime" is like 90% of his output at this point.
That said, I'd be less cynical about trans rights if every trans person who does act in bad faith didn't seem to be a hill that trans activists are willing to die on defending.
Did you read the piece Hoff linked to? That woman, at least, clearly does understand the long-term tradeoffs. She goes out of her way to talk to her right-leaning readers and say "Yes, I understand all the arguments you are making, I've heard them, now please consider the counterarguments."
You can disagree with her that the cons are as bad as she says (some of her commenters do just that), you can insist that she undervalues the pros and would change her mind if only she had hatched eggs of her own (maybe, though I think a lot of people assume that all women are naturally made to be mothers and underestimate how many just... aren't), you can say "Most women aren't as smart or as thoughtful as her and are just living their hedonistic future-cat-lady lives" (possibly true), but the only people who insist women "aren't being warned" about the long-term tradeoffs are people who fundamentally don't believe women are capable of thinking.
If our culture was more "traditional" and valued childbearing more, yes, we'd probably see more women choose to have children. But a lot of things would have to happen to make that effective, not just pumping the media full of memes and shows about how great motherhood is. Most of those things would involve either greater support for childrearing (at a financial cost most conservatives balk at), or constraining the ability of women to opt out (an option that is popular with conservatives, but understandably not popular with women).
More options
Context Copy link