Wow bucko there's a lot to unpack here.

Sorry, I had to do that. Couldn't resist the reddit shitpost.

but the point is that women are physically incapable of being adults or even mature due to their mental failings.

In risk of being banned again I'll respond honestly because that's what I've always done.

No. That's not what I'm saying.

I think women mature on a much longer timeframe than men do. Whereas a man that faces hardship might end up lording over a family in his late teens or early twenties, it is inordinately rare for a woman to act as a pillar of a family, community, or anything else until much later in life.

Yes women can be adults. Yes they can be mature. It just takes them a hell of a lot longer, on average.

There are no "classes of people" which can conspire as such a demographic, or as an innate result of being their demographic. Conspiratorial action is normally the actions of individuals

I'm not gonna post on that because I know you'll ban me for it, but I disagree.

I don't think you used the word temerity right here. The best I can figure is that you don't think women can see the distinction between individuals and groups.

I used the word correctly.

What I'm referring to is the propensity for girls/women to form cliques.

I'd delve deeper into that topic, but you just said I can't so I won't. Instead I'll just point and reference to that one article written by a female business owner who started a business of all women who regretted it and said it was awful and she would prefer to work with men.

about how women, as an abstraction, have a propensity for X. You're probably going to show mean distributions, probabilistic statistics, hell you might even make an argument from neurochemistry or genetics that shows that females are less likely to do Y or engage in Z.

Not really.

I was going to go from the other side and post articles and quotes of women that hit the wall. I think that shows a much better idea of what I'm talking about.

I could go into neurology and all that but it's kinda a bunk argument in my opinion. We could of course go into all the innate differences between men and women on a biological level, but this path creates the issue of a further breach of R16.

Which, again, is why I cannot stand R16.

that asserts a level of innate cognitive inferiority that women as a collective demographic, are so mentally incapable that it would be warranted to treat them as retarded, or wards of the state.

No that's most certainly not what I'm arguing.

Are children so stupid as to necessitate them becoming wards of the state?

Of course not.

The argument is much more basic:

As a long term necessity of biological functions men mature much, much quicker into a state whereby they are capable of making choices in deference to the continuation of the family. Girls, on the other hand, take much more time to fall into this mindset without a male presence guiding them.

In terms of statistics and data this is easily drawn out by political beliefs and associations.

That conclusion doesn't follow from the evidence because it is not only a sweeping generalization, but it's a sweeping generalization which is patently false on it's face.

I covered this above. That's not even close to what my argument is.

Let's say Jester loses his mind and argues that jews are mentally incapable of forming a racial cabal to dominate the Earth.

He'd never argue against the supremacy of the tribe.

At best he'd argue that the Irish are degenerates that should be purged because their red hair genes are offensive to him, as he's already damn near done lol.