. . .

I depend on women all the time in personal, private, and political life, and that I find that women (and gays) provide valuable insight.

I see no harm in this model, since, (as simon stated above) it would be impossible for women to use ‘female’ (deceptive) speech in public, and that this would cause a change in our women that is both desirable and necessary. So I see it as a means of completing the domestication of women – long since accomplished in men.

The fact that I want to limit their excesses does not mean that I do not want their inputs. No CEO of merit ever does that. No king of merit ever does that. Leadership involves exhaustively collecting ideas until no novelties can be found.

So where you see empowerment, I see constraint. Where you see risk, I see training. That is why. Produce a market for the signals and speech that is true, and provide punishment for the alternatives, and let the market do its thing.

A married woman with three children, who can be legally punished for gossip and “scolding”, will be a fairly rare thing.

if you don’t think that’s optimum. Thats fine. However, If I want to create a universal political consitution for every human group I have to include the options.

What people do with them is their own choice.