This linguistic game is basically the core defining feature of progressivism as practiced: one can hold a term in linguistic ambiguity and choose, post-hoc, whichever one is most convenient for them to assume at the time (which may be a completely different definition from the one they operated under yesterday).

This way you can have your cake and eat it too by advancing radical feminist ideology at the bailey before retreating to the motte of what you call common sense.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

It's unfair to change the context of someone's reply after they've posted it, and confusing to other readers.

Edit: parent changed his/her comment after I posted my criticism. Originally it was much shorter and only wrote that the parent's comments are preconceived notions. No context, no nothing.

We really need a see history feature on HN