It has nothing to do with genitalia. It has to do with naming an actual problem that people actually have that requires systemd as a solution. Claiming that systemd can't give you cold sores isn't much of a supporting statement when no software can give you cold sores.
I still haven't seen a single problem that requires a hairball of dependencies staked down into PID 1 to solve. I genuinely want to understand why the systemd camp doesn't solve the problems in a more flexible and reasonable manner which would, incidentally, put to rest all of the controversy. Why can't systemd be started from the old init instead of (or along with) rc.S for example (at lest as an optional configuration)?
Evidently, logind was modified such that it doesn't need systemd to operate so it could go into Ubuntu to support Gnome. So then, why did it ever need systemd and why can't it stay in modified form upstream? For that matter, why isn't it a standalone project or a part of Gnome (the only thing that cares about it)?
But more specifically here, the discussion turned to why can't a Debian fork stick with sysvinit for another release cycle. You arguie it is way too buggy for that because of a situation you admit you already solved but apparently didn't send along with a bug report.
In the end, I'm not the one trying to jam my fingers into your pie. Half the systemd camp claims they are absolutely positively not trying to cram systemd down my throat but as soon as I discuss not going to systemd the other half wants to tell me how impossible that is. Some even gleefully prattle on about how they will get more and more software to depend on systemd so I won't be able to patch it out fast enough to keep going. Really nice, huh?
Look in the mirror.