Why don ' t you go back through my post a few more times and compare the shit you ' re pulling out of the air to what was actually said . Like , you ' d have to be legitimately impaired to think I was saying she was upset because some CEOs are men . Do I have to actually copy paste her argument for you to know what I ' m referring to ? There was not a single part of the post that relied on that so why you ' d think it was even relevant as a retort fascinates me . I ' m going to ignore the bit where you conflate all meanings of equality and move on to your second paragraph . How is it not ? Are you incapable of basic logic as well ? Her talking point relies on men out numbering women in CEO positions , that 90 % is what ' s critical . Saying they can be trans is saying that this is not necessarily the case . It ' s not realistic , and she could have said as much and then no one would have cared and this would not have been posted ! But here ' s the thing , the real crux of the issue you , by some incredible force of nature , seem to be missing . SHE DIDN ' T . It ' s not a great argument and it had plenty of counterarguements , it would have been easy to refute in a mature way . But that ' s not what happened , is it ?