If you’re claiming it is without substance you’re simply erasing sex, which is OBVIOUSLY A SUBSTANTIVE CONCEPT.
Speaking of yelling, can you please not use allcaps for emphasis on HN? This is in the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
By the way, "substantive" isn't the same as "substantiated". It just means containing information that would be of interest to a curious reader. For example, if I describe an anecdote from my experience, that can easily be substantive without there being any need to substantiate it (e.g. by proving that it happened).
I don’t particularly care for the guidelines as they significantly harm the quality of conversation. You’re welcome to ban me.
From a historical perspective, such a question in even its simplest form is entirely valid given the nature of gender roles in societies. Are/were conspiring women's groups more or less feared than men's? I don't know myself, and my comment was sincere in that regard.
> Women getting together is fine. Not once have groups of women ever been known to rebel against the government.
I agree with the sarcasm. Women are generally less problematic than men but they rebel when it matters. Another example, Rosa Parks.
Would Trajan have known this? Of course.
Compare your descriptions of suffragettes' terrorist activities with the research on how effective terrorist campaigns are at even getting their favored policies implemented. (And then, of course, ask yourself whether Trajan could have been aware of a 20th-century women's movement.)
The concept of a women's conspiracy was familiar. Lysistrata involves all the women of Athens conspiring to end the Peloponnesian war by calling a general sex strike.
All this is covered by the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. We didn't come up with these rules in a bubble bath! They've all been hammered out by the brutal processes of the internet forum.