Oh, you're complaining about one badly-chosen word. Women instead of girls.

Well I look dumb. Sorry.

But do you have any response to the other 99% of that post?

> I think I was plenty clear.

Normally people, especially those already in the reply chain, reply to the main argument of posts, so I don't think it was sufficiently clear. I would suggest quoting the part you're responding to if it's that small a section.

For what its worth, it was totally lost on me too. I thought it was a non-sequitur rant ignoring the entirety of the post

But that doesn't mean they're legally adult. Or that it's fine to pressure them into sex with older men.

I stated a legal fact, without any judgment. That this gets downvoted says very little about me. It says a lot about Hackernews.

You stated it in a particular context. Either it was intended for this context and therefore meant to defend child sex trafficking, or it was not meant for this context, and thus off-topic.

If you meant it to be more nuanced than that, maybe include that nuance in your comment.

Among them, that we're not sympathetic to child sex trafficking.