POPVLVS ROMAE ANTIQVAE HUIC LEGI PROPONITVR ADVERSENT

I understand what you are saying about the Amazonian depictions and I agree that these depictions of Amazon societies are a construct of men.

In the same way, Bayonetta is not "embracing her sexuality", because she never actually lived. She is fictitious, and her actions are not her own informed choice, but rather her "actions" and "choices" are thrust upon her by the male programmers and game designers, who threw every sexual fantasy that they had upon her.

However, the depiction of Bayonetta does not mean that every real-life equivalent of Bayonetta is a sexist representation of masculine fantasy. In fact, were Bayonetta actually alive, she would be a feminist depiction of a woman embracing her sexuality.

It is thus important to realize that while Amazonian depictions project a masculine fantasy that women in power would respond the same as they do, it does not actually mean that were such a gender-role reversed culture be found that it would be a fantasy of masculine ideals. Neither does the actual existence of such a culture show that the masculine fantasies are not fantasies. (A bit of an example of "true knowledge" vs. "belief that just happened to be true".)

Again, I assert, there exists a primitive culture wherein the men are the subjugated gender, and as they are the subjugated gender, it falls upon them to be attractive and entice a mate to marry them. Regardless of this apparent full reversal of gender roles, the thing that makes this distinct and different from masculine fantasy, is that the women of this tribe do NOT do the physical activities of providing for food on most occasions, because there is a recognition in the culture that males do in fact have better muscular strength and endurance. The men get food by climbing trees, and other physically demanding actions, while the women obtain food in shortfalls by using their brains.

What makes this specific and extant culture interesting is not what gender roles are reversed (wearing make up, and being pretty are obviously cultural inclinations that would be exploited by a subjugated gender) but rather what gender roles are NOT reversed, but simple recontextualized, or reframed, in order to fit their believe system that women are the superior gender. (i.e. Men are stronger physically, sure, but who cares, they're idiots, and would be nothing without women to guide them.)

Addressing your "transphobia", the distinction of transgender vs. cisgender is something that should only ever matter between a person and those providing them medical care. There is no justifiable reason for society to treat them differently from cisgendered individuals of the same gender. Your statement that transgendered people are "emulating" the other gender belies a wrong assumption, and a hateful position similar to suggesting that black people are lazy. What are the "realities" of transgendered people not being of the gender that they IDENTIFY with? Genes, gonads, hormones, phenotypical traits? What of these apply to transgendered individuals but not Caster Semenya? Genes, and gonads. What of these narrowed traits do not also apply to women with CAIS? None. So, a woman can be a woman, and still have a 46-XY genotype, a man can be a man and still have a 46-XX genotype. A woman can still be a woman and have testies, as a man can be a man with ovaries and/or a uterus. A woman can still be a woman and have hormone levels consistent with men, and a man can be a man and have hormone levels consistent with women. A woman can still be a woman and have masculine features, and a man can still be a man and have feminine features. So, what really makes a woman a woman, or a man a man? There is no answer you can give that excludes the transgendered, without unnecessarily excluding intersexed individuals.

Your position that transgendered people are "acting", or "emulating" their identified gender implies that they are not genuinely the gender with which they identify with, and what does any of the gender of another person have to do with you or anyone else in society? Do you regularly have to interact with the genitalia of other people? Does it, or should it really matter to you ever in your everyday life what the historic nature of another person's body was? Sure, if you're a doctor, or a psychiatrist, or psychologist, there are reasons to know these things, but outside of the medical community, there is no reasonable cause for distinguishing the transgendered from the cisgendered that they identify with. And you're wrong for suggesting such.

(Side note: I would love to live in a world where no one gave a shit about transgendered vs. cisgendered, and the distinction were treated no differently than one's eye color. In such a world, there's no reason why the distinction should be a big deal, and the transgendered wouldn't be treated differently because they're transgendered in the first place. This isn't saying that they should be considered different genders. Telling anyone that you're not really who you are is offensive in so many ways. However, ticking a "T" vs a "C" in a box next to "M" "F" and "Other" box would not be unreasonable in a world where it were treated as a normal and acceptable variation of humans.)

A respondent to a restraining order always has to the option to oppose the restraining order in a hearing, wherein the court will hear arguments as to if the restraining order should be granted or not. If at the end of it, the court finds that the restraining order is just, he may end up granting it, which is a proper following of due process. (As I note above, due process can take away your life and liberty already, so why shouldn't it be capable of restricting one's free speech?)

Take it this way. We have a right to be free, and conduct our actions as we see fit. However, arrest abridges this freedom. Does that mean that all arrest is illegal? No, because arrest and imprisonment are granted by due process.

All of this is moot however, because the guy consented to the restraining order. The guy himself agreed to not harass her, or adversely affect her privacy. (Posting information about her online most certainly adversely affects her privacy, no matter what argument you attempt to present. It is prima facie divulging of private details.)

You are wrong, according to modern US legal theory. The fact that NDAs exist, and confidentiality clauses exist, and that they are regularly enforced supports my position that one can willingly forfeit their right to free speech.

Yes, he did. Also, yes, he could have fought the restraining order in a hearing. If he won, the restraining order would have not been granted, and if he lost, then due process would have placed the restraining order on him.

Since due process allows us to imprison people, and even sometimes take their lives, then arguing that due process shouldn't be able to take a narrow band out of one's free speech is kind of silly.

Windows does not compile as one single monolithic process. Also, it does not compile to a single executable, which is then profile-guided optimized. It wouldn't surprise me at all that Firefox's build process required more working memory at its memory-constrained bottleneck than the Windows build process does.

He could have contested the restraining order, and fought it in court. Possibly, he also consented to the restraining order in order to settle a criminal charge.

Settlements hand out confidentiality clauses like they're candy, and this usually is detrimental to the individual receiving the settlement, yet no matter how horrible the confidentiality agreement sucks for the person later on in life, the clause is still enforceable.

Shit sucks, he was informed of the consequences, and he consented. Now, he has to live with it. Life sucks, quite often in fact. However, in general it is not the duty of the court to let a person out of obligations that they gave informed consent to, just because they didn't realize how much the obligation would suck ass at the time.

Figured it was something like that.

As noted below, he consented to the restraining order. Thus, the 1st amendment "violations" are just as enforceable as any NDA, because he consented to the limitation of his rights.

Except that the guy consented to the restriction not to adversely affect her privacy.

He already willingly forfeited his right to free speech in this case, the court is simply enforcing his word. If this punishment were overturned, then it would be precedent to make NDAs unenforceable as well.

I found a video purportedly of the of the Hibitoe people in Papua New Guinea. link here. I cannot however substantiate the material with anything else. (Searching Google for "Hibitoe" turns up nearly nothing.)

I cannot find the video that we were shown in my Sociology 101 class. However, my statements were based on a real actual culture that has been studied, and documented. For the life of me, I cannot find any references about it. Your most appropriate position is skepticism of this, until provided evidence, and unfortunately, I cannot find any of the evidence that I know to exist.

You're free to doubt me, but the culture does actually exist.

As noted... well, by yourself. The Jews were expelled from Spain. So, the choice was either to convert to Catholicism, or emigrate. The Spanish Inquisition chiefly made sure that these converts didn't go back to their old ways.

So, no you weren't allowed to be Jewish, because if you were Jewish, you had to have already emigrated out of the country, or converted to being Catholic.

That the Vatican still maintains an inquisition is still irrelevant to the specific inquisition being the Spanish Inquisition. That particular inquisition was created by the monarchy and reported to the monarchy. The Spanish Inquisition was finally abolished in 1834. Again, that the Vatican maintains an "inquisition" to this day, and the Spanish Inquisition has the word "inquisition" in it, does not mean that the specific body known as the Spanish inquisition were a part of the Vatican's inquisition.

Although, I will point out that you were kind of correct initially, in that they had no authority over non-Christians (more accurately, non-Catholics), however it ignores the fact that all subjects of Spain were supposed to be Catholic. But then, the Monarchy had given an opportunity to all of the Jews, Muslims, to emigrate or convert prior to the founding of the Inquisition. (In fact, the initial duty of the SI was to ensure that these converts weren't practicing their forbidding religion.) Later, they just decided to forcefully expel all of the ex-Muslims just to be on the safe side. So, yeah, they didn't have authority over any non-Catholics, but legally that covered all Spanish subjects.

The inquisition was an action of the Spanish monarchy, and had authority over all Spanish subjects.