Since it is neither one, but a type of behavior, you are still wrong to do so. And it is just as offensive to equate that kind of behavior as to associate it with a sexual orientation. Score: 0.

As you've said, it's a type of behavior exhibited by guys who describe their ass as smooth and shapely. Contrasted with Jane Q. Public, who describes her ass as smooth and shapely and thus isn't vastly irritating because she's a woman. Right, Lonny Eachus?

You've made it clear that you're either a woman or a "flamer" (your words). [Dumb Scientist]

Here I contrasted "flamer" with "woman" so it refers to gender, not sexual orientation.

"flamer" refers to a type of behavior, not a sexual orientation. YOU just committed an act of sexual stereotyping that many people would find offensive. [Jane Q. Public]

But hey, why not accuse an imaginary voice in your head of committing an offensive act of sexual stereotyping?

So you deny saying that the only way a guy could describe his ass as "smooth and shapely" like you did would be if he were a "flamer" who wouldn't be in your circle of friends because flamers irritate you vastly? [Dumb Scientist]

Again I connected "flamer" to "guy" so it refers to gender, not sexual orientation. Which, again, I never mentioned. But you did. Repeatedly.

The word "flamers" refers to a type of SOCIAL BEHAVIOR. It is not a sexual orientation. I even mentioned something to that effect in the thread I was commenting in at the time. And YOUR attempt in this exchange to equate "flamer" with a sexual orientation IS A SEXIST STEREOTYPE THAT MANY PEOPLE WOULD FIND OFFENSIVE. A lot. I know people, anyway, who would certainly be offended by it. [Jane Q. Public]

You're right to be offended at the imaginary voice in your head. A lot.

So you deny saying that the only way a guy could describe his ass as "smooth and shapely" like you did would be if he were a "flamer" who wouldn't be in your circle of friends because flamers irritate you vastly?

I don't know who that AC was, but I'm taking her on her word that she's actually female. That's actually another reason why your dishonesty is harmful; it'd be easier to take people at their word if pathological liars like Lonny Eachus weren't posing as women like Jane Q. Public.

How fascinating that you deny baselessly accusing scientists of lying and/or deliberately manipulating data to produce fraudulent results. Is this because you "forgot" all your accusations, or because your Morton's demon has such a tight grip that you can't admit your accusations were baseless?

You've made it clear that you're either a woman or a "flamer" (your words). You clearly implied you're a woman when you speculated about my motives, just like you did when you speculated about BasilBrush's motives after he independently discovered that you're a man posing as a woman on the internet: "I think this is just a pathetic macho reaction because you don't have the spine to admit you can be bested by a woman."

If you still don't understand how your dishonesty reinforces sexist female stereotypes, read that woman's critique again:

"... You are really pissing me off here because you are acting out the worst sexist stereotypes of women: completely irrational, expecting special treatment and unable to keep a single thought straight in your head for more than a couple of minutes and then getting hyper-emotional when called on it. You are the kind of woman who makes it that much harder for the rest of us women to be judged on our abilities instead of the same old, ugly stereotypes you've spent the day reinforcing right here. Shame on you." [Someone to Jane, 2012-09-09]

She didn't say you're reinforcing sexist female stereotypes because you agree with a female psychologist. She noted that you're completely irrational and can't keep a single thought straight in your head. For example, you've spent years accusing scientists of lying and/or deliberately manipulating data to produce fraudulent results. And now you deny ever accusing scientists of lying and/or deliberately manipulating data to produce fraudulent results. When I've called you on dozens of your baseless accusations, you got hyper-emotional, cussing and fixating on asshole caliber.

Here's another example:

"if it turns out that you have made a mistake, you could be creating all kinds of trouble for yourself." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-27]

"*if* I did happen to be the person you claim I am, I would likely have a very good libel case against you by now. You should hope I'm not." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-29]

First you claim I should hope I haven't made a mistake, then just two days later you claim I should hope I have made a mistake? Since you can't keep a single thought straight in your head, you probably didn't notice contradicting yourself. Since you're completely irrational, you probably don't see how irrational it would be for someone to hope they couldn't use the defense of truth.

It's okay if you act like this as Lonny Eachus because you just make men look bad, which is at least honest because you are a man. But when you pose as a woman named Jane Q. Public, your irrational tantrums make women look bad, and that's dishonest because you're actually a man. Do you really not understand this very simple point, or are you just feigning ignorance?

So we're clear, you just claimed to be a woman. Right?

Have you actually forgotten all the times you and Lonny Eachus have accused scientists of lying, or are you just waiting for my link so you can act horrified at the time I took to dig it up?

Leave you in peace so you can keep baselessly accusing scientists of fraud, while you're a man dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet?

So when you claimed that most people who bothered to look have referred to you as a gal, you weren't claiming to be a woman instead of a man named Lonny Eachus?

So after you cheered for entrepreneurs with testicles and someone objected, you asked "who should be more offended than me?" because you couldn't imagine that actual women might be more offended than a man like Lonny Eachus who poses as a woman on the internet?

So when you said you're not a lesbian, you said that because you're actually a man named Lonny Eachus who couldn't possibly be a lesbian?

So now you're denying that you ever claimed to be a woman. Are you lying, or have you already forgotten all the links above? Haven't you noticed your pseudonym? It's supposed to tell everyone you're not a dude like Lonny Eachus. This isn't a game of 20 questions. It's just one question, repeated 20 times or more if necessary. Are you Lonny Eachus?

I never asked you to say what your identity is. I simply asked you to confirm what you've been saying for years, that you're a woman who can't possibly be a man named Lonny Eachus. I'm just asking you to say what your identity isn't. Should be easy, unless you're a pathological liar like Lonny Eachus.

If you aren't Lonny Eachus, and are in fact a woman who isn't a man named Lonny Eachus, then you shouldn't have a problem saying that. After all, it's not like you're a pathological liar, right?

So just to be clear, you're swearing on your honor that you (Jane Q. Public) are not Lonny Eachus? Jane Q. Public is placing all her credibility on her claim that Jane is a woman who isn't a man named Lonny Eachus? Please answer directly for the historical record.

How hard could it be to understand that Lonny Eachus is reinforcing sexist female stereotypes by posing as a woman who's completely irrational, expects special treatment and can't keep a single thought straight in his head for more than a couple of minutes and then getting hyper-emotional when called on it?

Very hard, apparently, judging by Jane/Lonny's hilarity. It's okay when Lonny acts out all these sexist female stereotypes as "@eachus" because at least that way people see that some men also exhibit these negative traits. In this sense, Lonny's tantrums actually fight these sexist female stereotypes. But when Lonny Eachus poses as Jane Q. Public and acts the same way, those pathological lies make all women look bad. Maybe this would be clearer if Jane hadn't ignored my first comment, so here it is again:

This is such disingenuous bullshit that I hardly know where to begin. But I'll try: First, point out where I told a lie. Please be specific. Calling me a liar without specific proof could be construed as libel. I've warned you about this before. (But of course, in order for that to be true it would also have to be about ME, not somebody else.) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-27]

Very well. Let's cut the bullshit. You are Lonny Eachus, a man posing as Jane Q. Public who lies about being female. By now that's almost a dozen links where Lonny Eachus lies about his own gender. How could anyone trust Lonny Eachus to tell the truth about anything important when Lonny Eachus lies about his own gender?

Your lame attempts to deflect attention away from your pathological lies must seem pathetic even to you. I don't need to justify [A] debunking your public civilization-paralyzing misinformation. In fact, considering the stakes, I'd have to justify ignoring it. I can't.

Lonny Eachus's sock-puppet account "Jane Q. Public" finds [B] sock-puppet accounts to be unacceptable behavior, and piles paranoia on that irony by wrongly accusing me [D] of creating an account with a hacked name that looked exactly like Jane Q. Public. I watched that hilarious incident, but I don't know how they hacked Jane Q. Public's name when it should've already been taken. If you ever find out who did that, please let me know because I'd like to buy them a drink. And if you ever find the missing [C] in your list, please let me know.

How funny that you're still speculating about illegal behavior, after I told you that I'm just debunking your public comments while you've quoted from illegally obtained private emails. In fact, you've even argued that up-skirt panty shots should be legal because they happen in public:

"... Did they show you their genitals on purpose? Is she hanging out of her dress in order to give you a peek? Or are you snooping? ... if you're sitting across from someone on the bus, how can they prove they didn't intend to uncross their legs while wearing no panties; they simply slipped or forgot. (Actually, forgot shouldn't be an exception anyway because that's negligence. But it's still a lack of intent.) As for (2), let's say they flash you deliberately, you take a picture (because after all, it's public), and then later they lie about their "intent". What about the woman who has sex at a party and then when she sobers up lies because she regrets her actions? Hell, things like that have happened throughout history, and of course it's not just women, or sex. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-07]

"...I've been in LOTS of situations in which things under a dress were made public... intentionally or otherwise. But at least some of those times were definitely intentional. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-07]

"... some woman standing on those steps lifts up her dress. ... it isn't a matter of "her asking for it", like some people would say if she walked down the wrong alley at night in a skimpy dress. (You and I would probably agree that she was NOT "asking for it", but just as an example of what we're talking about.) Because a rape or something of that nature is already a crime anyway. You'd be saying (wrongly, probably, but still saying) she was asking you to commit the crime. ... If she is there, and the laws are made that way, SHE could decide whether a crime was committed on her merest whim, by simply saying what her "intentions" were. She can control your behavior by forcing you do not do something you would otherwise be able to legally do... and decide whether or not you are a criminal, any time she wants. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-08]

If Lonny Eachus complained that up-skirt panty shots need to be legal because otherwise women can control your behavior and decide whether or not you are a criminal, he might just be dismissed as a misogynist with a secret photo collection. But when "Jane Q. Public" makes that argument, it holds more weight because of "her" gender. In my opinion that dishonesty isn't just ethically wrong, it's part of a sociopathic false flag operation in the war on women.