gender policing irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny reactionary bullshit red pill transphobia

Women in military uniforms are crossdressers, and “loathsome” to God, Red Piller says

During the Civil War, women literally crossdressed in order to join the army
During the Civil War, women literally crossdressed in order to join the army

Well, this is a new one to me. Dalrock is a Christian Red Pill dude who’s been kicking up a fuss about women in the military, on behalf of God almighty, who’s apparently got some strong views on the subject.

And now he’s found a new reason why God doesn’t want to see women wearing military uniforms — because women wearing what has traditionally been a male outfit is basically a form of crossdressing, and crossdressing is icky.

In a recent post, Dalrock quotes from Christian blogger Douglas Wilson, who argues that “opposition to this monstrosity is a function of biblical faithfulness.” How so? Well, it seems that there’s a passage in Deuteronomy that says:

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

But wait, you say, that doesn’t actually mention anything about women wearing military uniforms per se. Ah, but according to Wilson it really does.

Notice the odd construction — “that which pertains to a man.” The Hebrew underneath is keli geber, and should be read as the “gear of a warrior.” Whether we are talking about a man in fishnet stockings, or a woman decked out in full battle regalia, we need to recognize that God finds it loathsome. So should we.

And it’s not just military uniforms that are an abomination for women to wear. As Wilson wrote in a followup blog post, that “gear of a warrior” bit “could also perhaps be extended to include something like a telephone lineman’s tool belt.”

Oh, and women being cops? That’s also a big Biblical no-no, “especially when it involves riot gear.”

Dalrock, for his part, agrees that the Lord doesn’t love a woman in a uniform, declaring Wilson’s argument to be “a simple, straightforward biblical case.”

That aside, Dalrock has a slightly different spin on the issue than Wilson:

I think a woman wanting to put on a military uniform and go into combat is not that different than a man wanting to wear a dress.  Both are literal and figurative forms of cross-dressing.  Both also are expressions of envy, and they are equally twisted. 

One wonders what these guys make of the literally crossdressing Corporal Klinger from MASH.

Or these guys:



98 replies on “Women in military uniforms are crossdressers, and “loathsome” to God, Red Piller says”

Didn’t read other comments yet, so apologies if I’m repeating someone else’s point, but as a translator and Hebrew speaker, after I saw that crap about כלי גבר I just had to comment about it being bullshit.
A. The word כלי (keli) is very general, definitely does not have to denote war gear. More like ‘equipment’ in general.
B. The word גבר (gever) means ‘man’, not ‘warrior’. He might be confusing it with גיבור (gibor), ‘hero, champion’.

So yeah, okay, Deutronomy is definitely anti-crossdressing, can’t say it isn’t, but if you insist on using a 4000-year-old text as your guide for modern life (although I’m guessing he wouldn’t, say, give up bacon), at least get the friggin translation right.

As a male, I could never get into big boobs. I have a hand and a mouth – what more do I need?

But – every girlfriend, and now my wife, have boobs that are perfect for them. Bless them, one and all.

@Saphira – nice costumes. As my wife says “Good luck with that”. She has much better sense about footware for fighting. Even I (with a bad knee) could outrun them in those heels.

Damn, someone beat to Acts. Well, to the Acts of the Apostles. There’s probably some unnatural acts I get to if I hurry.

I’m pretty sure one of Jesus’ miracles was turning tiny boobs into giant boobs, or maybe fish?

Does it work in reverse? That’s it, I’m giving my life to Jesus to get these damn things down to a reasonable size.

This guy probably then turned around and complained that women have it easy because they never have to sign up for the draft

I grew up in a small Southern town where we had a bunch of Pentecostals who were big fans of this verse. The poor girls were always in pale blouses and rather tatty denim skirts. For some reason they also seemed to be against conditioner. The girls were barely even allowed to trim their hair and they had this ridiculously long hair often as tatty as the denim. They’d often have to sit out gym because they couldn’t even wear shorts under their skirts. (Neither the school district nor the the church or church parents ever thought to look around for an alternative uniform for them. It was pre-Internet days so research was harder I guess.) I several times witnessed them catching the ire of the gym teacher.

To be fair, those gym shorts really weren’t meant for women. I was big hipped from a young age and those shorts were always an unflattering fit.


I was raised liberal Christian. Trust me, if it worked, I’d have known by now and been a shitload happier.

Why can’t big boobed women donate the excess to other women that want more boob? It seems totally illogical to me. They’d be happy, we’d be happy, but noooo….

I was raised Catholic, and when I still believed a bit and someone told me another silly thing God seems to frown upon, like gay relationships or certain clothes, or whatever, I’d think in the lines of “my, if that’s all true it’s a surprise we are alive, cause the universe apparently is ruled by a really moody man baby with really weird rules with power enough to destroy everything. I hope Jesus made him calm down a bit these last millenia. (I was a huge fan of jesus. I liked him so much I chatted with him every night, telling him about my day and eventually asking for some help, like if he was my classmate who happened to have superpowers and be very, very shy and quiet).”
I don’t know how can some people take the Bible this literally and still believe it and respect God. I mean, I understand fear, of course everyone should be terrified if God really was cruel and random. But I don’t understand respect or love for a god who is like this. I understand the love for jesus though. He is still my bro :p

All that stuff in Deuteronomy forbidding “unnatural” sexual/dietary practices and admixtures of materials was mostly an attempt to set themselves apart from the Canaanites, who they considered degenerate. The Canaanites were rumored to practice religious prostitution, and they had a highly unsuitable female deity, Astarte, goddess of love. Female worshippers were “accustomed to appear in armor before her”, so it’s very possible that this passage is condemning that practice. “Keli geber” specifically refers to the accoutrements of warriors, not men’s clothing in general. The authors weren’t talking about tool belts or pants.

…Aaaand, 9000 years later, we still have purity-obsessed cafeteria fundamentalists who want men and women to stay segregated in their separate gender boxes, who believe that God shares their phobias, who think the world will descend into chaos if the peas are allowed to touch the potatoes. Funny how they’re willing to abandon all the other parts of Deuteronomy that are contradictory, don’t apply to the modern world, or are cruel and aberrant by 21st century standards, yet keep the parts that confirm their pre-existing prejudices. Either it’s all the inerrant word of God, or it’s not. If it’s not, then why exactly should modern military policy be based on Iron Age tribal rules?

The bible has a whole heap of advice, but people seem to only pick and choose what THEY want to pursue. Generally stuff like condemning Gay Marriage. As someone said, you are not meant to wear mixed fibres, eat shell fish or have a tattoo, but on the whole we have moved on from condemning most “abominations” and I know I haven’t stoned anyone to death for years. Not heard this twist, but then I am new to all this Mens Movement stuff. (I am in the UK and was brought to it following hearing about the Roosh V grand tour) It’s a funny old world!!

I’m not very familiar with the Bible or Christian God, but I’m sure zie could care less what people wear. You know, unconditional love and all. Not to mention zie created people naked and therefore, wouldn’t clothing just be a human invention that a god wouldn’t be too concerned with? Like I said though, I’m not all that familiar with Christianity so any Christians here feel free to correct me.

Well, Genesis does have wearing clothing being the first thing Adam and Eve do after eating from the Tree of Knowledge and obtaining the knowledge of good and evil, though I always see that interpreted as improvised underwear. Of course, God threw them out of the Garden of Eden because He told them not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, so His specific opinion is unclear. I haven’t really read the old laws because the church I grew up in (I’m atheist but my old church ordained openly gay bishops last decade and remain good people in my book) was of the opinion that Jesus showed up because God decided that the old laws were too complicated for us and people were misapplying them.

God’s gender, incidentally, is a Trinitarian controversy, because apparently you can never have too many of those. See, in Trinitarian Christianity (Includes Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestant, but is not universal) they believe in one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There are innumerable positions on exactly how one God is three entities, many of which seem almost indistinguishable, though I think that’s partially because they started in ancient Greek or Latin and some of the differences are less clear in translation. Anyways, positions include that the Father and Son are male and the Holy Spirit is female. Or that God is beyond humanity and the concept of gender cannot be meaningfully applied.


Jehanne wasn’t charged so much because of the clothing thing – it only gained ground as the trials ( and their embarassments ) continued and it happened to be the only thing they could make stick to her. They definitely started on a different path with her.

I find Jehanne’s trial to be rather analogous to this entire situation; after trying all the other heretical accusations they could muster against Jehanne ( from her career at first to her visions to eventually her banner and finally even going so far as saying attempted escape would label her guilty of heresy ) and having them fall flat due to her eloquent rebuttals that are still reviewed today for how awesome they were, the clothing was basically the equivalent of “Well, um, we still don’t like you and you embarrassed us and wearing men’s / soldier’s clothing is bad because the text alludes to it even though we caught you in the act of being a foreign agent / militant and this was initially about that but we’re off topic because evil woman so BURN”.

Which is like… the exact same frame of the argument, really.

And let’s remember that Jehanne actually did initially consent to wearing the other clothing in order to appease, but changed after her sexual harassment / attempted rape by the guards ( she specifically complained to the Bishops and Inquisitors about this though it is largely omitted from the trial texts ).

“History does not repeat itself, it rhymes” spoke Clemens, and so the arguments are made ad nosieum again today with the same air of “GOTCHA!” they were always intended to have yet never did.

What about the fact that women in uniforms make my boner happy? Doesn’t he care at all about my important boner? Doesn’t making boners sad qualify him as an evil feminazi? I declare Misandry!

Er, Acts. But yes, exactly.

And it wasn’t John, but Peter.

I too would love to see these guys hassle a Scotsman about his national dress (from a safe distance).

From a linguistic perspective, the Trinity is a he, a he, and an it (“pneuma” is neuter).

@ Buttercup

All that stuff in Deuteronomy forbidding “unnatural” sexual/dietary practices and admixtures of materials was mostly an attempt to set themselves apart from the Canaanites, who they considered degenerate.

Interestingly, it appears that the earliest
Israelites were, in fact, Canannite schismatics, so they needed all those rules to distinguish themselves, because they couldn’t do it by language, culture, or general physical appearance.

The reason for Kosher and the behavioral laws was pretty simple. You have to remember these were tribes with villages up to roughly 1000 people before they would split to form two villages. Part of the dynamic was how much land it took to feed the village.

Kosher kept them healthy because the food was not refrigerated and sometimes not cooked properly. Pork and shellfish are prime examples – they contain wee beasties that can kill.

The behavioral laws kept small villages relatively free of major strife. Yes, some parts are brutal, like stoning a rebellious child. It was a brutal time. And the laws encouraged rebellious children to leave to avoid death, etc.

The law about if your brother dies you (a male) must marry his widow, meant shelter and support for the widow and her children. Again, a solution that helped the parties involved, even if it was what we would consider to be patriarchal. These were small villages, with limited resources.

These laws were about specific conditions. We do not need them now, in most parts of the world. If things go *really sideways* and most of the world population dies, these laws will be needed again.

Never understood the no-mixed-textiles thing.

The laws had another effect – they set the Jews apart from the rest of the communities. As a result, the Jews were persecuted for being different, which created a group identity that has survived to this day. Of course, the persecution has been brutal. See the Holocaust. But – they are the *first* people to *never* lose their identity after their homeland was invaded and they were scattered to the world. And the first to ever regain their homeland.

Please note I am making specific observations, and explicitly *not* making moral judgments – this is not the forum for those, one way or the other.

We now return to our regularly scheduled forum topic: women in the military kicking ass.


Doug Wilson, interestingly enough, likes to LARP as a Scotsman, to a far greater extent than most Presbyterians. He often wears Scottish dress, calls his church (in Moscow, Idaho) a kirk, idolizes the Scottish Covenanters, etc.

He also admires the Confederacy (which might not be entirely unrelated, as neo-Confederates tend to see the South as possessing a “Celtic” identity distinct from that of the North).

Never understood the no-mixed-textiles thing.

Ah, this is simply a religious-hatred thing.

Zoroastrian priests wore gowns made of mixed fabrics during rituals, and so this rule was added in order to make it easier to persecute Zoroastrians. It was a religion that was on the rise in the area and many people were converting to it, hence priests feeling threatened.

(Zoroastrianism is referred to as “fire worship” in the Old Testament.)

A lot of the restrictions within the Old Testament are intended as ways to criminalise belonging to or converting to another religion.


Interesting, I actually didn’t know that. I wasn’t raised Christian so the things that I have heard about the faith have only been the basic fundamentalist sexist homophobic version. (Not saying that Christianity is inherently misogynistic/bigoted, just that a lot of so-called “Christians” have used it to justify their prejudices.) Which doesn’t mean that the Christian faith is bad, but just that people will pretty much twist and warp anything they can to support their bigoted beliefs.

Atheists aren’t innocent of this either, as I’m sure we all know about the shitty things Richard Dawkins and the rest of the brotheists have said. A lot of movement atheism has used evo-psych pseudoscience to justify things such as racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. (Just trying to make it clear I’m not religion-bashing and people of all faiths/lack of faith can be good or bad people)

Monotheism generally doesn’t get on well with other religions, since a montheistic religion being correct inherently implies other religions are wrong. Various religious conflicts are much more understandable when you realize that historically people tended to believe that performing the correct rituals was the difference between a good harvest and a devastating drought or other natural disasters; polytheistic religions were willing to accept that it was perfectly fine for people to pray to different gods who would aid said people, but tended to take anything they thought actually interfered with keeping their end of the sacrifices-for-rain deal very badly. In the Roman Empire, Jews were specifically exempt from being charged for treason for not participating in the state religion; everyone else could pray to any number of gods so long as they also prayed to the one or ones supporting the Emperor.

It’s not universally true that religions were concerned mainly with the physical world, but it is a fairly common theme.

Also, there are over two billion Christians in the world and they come in all sorts of denominations. It’s just that the more tolerant ones don’t tend to explicitly justify their political stances by referencing their beliefs. The US is about 70% Christian and any political position with widespread support has a number of Christian supporters.


That makes sense. I always knew that there were liberal and progressive Christians, but unfortunately their voices often get drowned out by the louder bigots. That doesn’t mean that the bigoted Christians are the majority, just that their voices are often the loudest. And that must genuinely suck for good, progressive, non-bigoted Christians who might get lumped in unfairly with the baddies.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of redpiller-type guys end up becoming Muslim and joining ISIS because you’re pretty much allowed to have your way with women if you’re an ISIS fighter.

Similarly, if Roosh and Dalrock had lived back in the 70s, they might have ended up joining David Berg’s cult. Its ethos was practically Gorean.

Also, wristwatches were invented by a clever lady who hung her watch on a bracelet. (I know, I know, nobody bothers with wristwatches since the arrival of cell phones.)

And they were considered too feminine for men to wear for a long time because they are basically bracelets. It’s only the fact that WWI soldiers found them so much more convenient than pocket watches that made them acceptable for men.

And wrist-based timekeeping isn’t totally dead. The whole smart watch thing seems to be taking off lately.

Doug Wilson? DOUG WILSON?

This is the guy who:

1. Performed and blessed the marriage of a convicted pedophile who was deemed at high risk for repeat offending and went so far as to pray that the couple have children.

2. Pushed to get a low sentence for said pedophile in the first place.

3. Neglected to inform his church of any of the above when he welcomed said pedophile into his church and performed said wedding.

4. Has made numerous attempts at slavery apologia.

5. Has said some really racist shit to defend his anti-choice position.

And this is the kind of person Christian Red Pill dude is holding out as an authoritative voice/expert opinion.

Damn, looks like Wilson may have to go on my regular misogynist reading list. Though I don’t think I’ll hire him to do any Hebrew-English translation work. (Thanks, Penny, for your comment; I love it when someone here has expertise that allows them to completely debunk MRA/etc crap.)


The most vocal in the US are denominations that either explicitly endorse theocracy or consider it very important to go around telling people that they need to convert or they’re going to hell, while the other denominations tend to not bring up the subject that much outside of church. Though there was a hilarious incident where Trump selected a church to officially visit and, well, the church reads selections from the bible on a three-year rotation and uses a translation with modern phrasing, and, well, this happened:

1 Corinthians 12
But I also want you to think about how this keeps your significance from getting blown up into self-importance. For no matter how significant you are, it is only because of what you are a part of. An enormous eye or a gigantic hand wouldn’t be a body, but a monster. What we have is one body with many parts, each its proper size and in its proper place. No part is important on its own. Can you imagine Eye telling Hand, “Get lost; I don’t need you”? Or, Head telling Foot, “You’re fired; your job has been phased out”?

Followed by a sermon on how it was everyone’s Christian duty to care for Syrian refugees and Mexican migrants.

On the other hand, there are some denominations that support the US’s Middle East policy while trying to breed a red cow to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem so that it can be desecrated as part of a plan to fulfill ancient prophecies and bring about the end of the world. It’s, uh, kind of a long story. I am pretty sure they have at least some influence on US foreign policy but am not really sure how much.

The largest denomination worldwide, Catholicism, is a complicated issue. There’s a long historical and theological backstory to this, but basically Catholics believe that it is important for people to receive sacraments, the sacraments can only be performed by a priest, and only the church can ordain priests. Priests are required to report to the Pope and he can prohibit people from receiving sacraments.

So people who believe in that but disagree with the church on theological issues may either stick it out and debate it in the church, or declare that the Pope is obviously wrong, therefore he cannot be a valid Pope and this other guy is Pope. I think it’s been a few centuries since the last time the second thing happened on a large scale, but European kings did it sometimes.

The Catholic Church is presently adamantly opposed to contraception, abortion, and homosexuality, but individual Catholics may disagree. They’re the source of most of the “religious organization that is not a church sues to block something” stories because they run a lot of hospitals and universities.

In case any of y’all would like to know more about Doug Wilson, this is a good place to start:

A final aspect of rape that should be briefly mentioned is perhaps closer to home. Because we have forgotten the biblical concepts of true authority and submission, or more accurately, have rebelled against them, we have created a climate in which caricatures of authority and submission intrude upon our lives with violence.

When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.

This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.

He’s a charmer, alright.

February 21, 2016 at 9:58 pm

Joan of Arc?

Joan of Arc was prosecuted by a Church court and convicted of heresy for wearing men’s clothing.

Generally, when someone is executed for heresy and then made a saint it can be taken as a sign that people disagree with the original verdict.


The Romans also didn’t wore pants (unless you were a cold soldier stationed in a northern province). To them pants were what the northern barbarians wore, and were considered inherently uncivilized.

I’m sure you’ve heard about all the letters home we still have from soldiers stationed on Hadrian’s Wall that are basically I love you it’s cold please send more socks.


Wow, all that is very interesting.

I think it would actually be fun to do research on different religions/denominations because I have never really had an opportunity to study religion before and a lot of the ideals/beliefs of some faiths are very fascinating.

And I would love to hear more about that Trump church visit. LOL bet he didn’t see that sermon coming!

The bible has a whole heap of advice, but people seem to only pick and choose what THEY want to pursue

Quoted for truth.

The bits that almost everyone who bangs on about gay sex and women not wearing trousers have agreed to forget include not lending money at interest, cancelling all debts every seven years, and (possibly relevant at the moment) treating immigrants as well as you’d treat everyone else.

About weird prohibitions which don’t necessarily make sense, not making sense may be part of the point if you want Our Crowd to distinguish themselves handily from The Other Crowd(s).

If we catch someone sneaking around the encampment and ask them if it’s forbidden to eat the seventh rib of the mammoth on a Tuesday, or whether mixed fibre socks are legal for priestesses, the *least* logical answer – the one which they are least likely to get by chance – is the one which works best as a test.

According to Richard Carrier, it’s possible to tell which archeologically excavated towns in ancient Canaan were Jewish and which weren’t by looking for pig bones and seafood shells in their trash.

To me, this suggests that it was entirely possible to live a healthy life in ancient Canaan by eating shellfish and pork, and therefore that the reasons why shellfish and pork are forbidden must be something other than the commonly-advanced ones.

Penny Psmith, you’re from that region if I recall correctly. Am I talking nonsense here?

Just a quick note on that Doug Wilson quote (he’s been on my radar for a while, because studying Christian theology on gender is what got me started on the whole feminism thing):

When Wilson refers to “egalitarians”, he’s referring to a broad camp of Christians who believe women can be teachers / leaders / pastors / priests / whatever without restriction. These folks may or may not call themselves feminists (many do), but they wholesale reject the idea of hierarchies between the genders.

Wilson is classified as a “complementarian”, someone who believes that men and women are designed to complement each other in their roles (i.e. men always lead and women always submit). They may be openly hostile and sexist (women who work are rebellious harpies), or more passively “benevolently” so (chivalry, protection, provision kind of language).

Just figured it would be helpful to clarify that, in that quote, “egalitarian” doesn’t refer to the disingenuous “equity feminist/why not call it humanism” sealions, but rather to Christians who believe the Bible promotes actual equality between the genders.


Hmm, if the christian god was really interested in the gendered clothe stuff, it would have rather create the Woman and the Man with clothes rather than full nude… By the way, the general representation of the christian god in cartoon is nude or with a robe. So much for the genreded clothes…

Have a nice day.

@ occasional reader

Can I just say I love the way you always sign off your posts in such a cheery way?


That doesn’t follow. It’s quite possible that the non-Jewish settlements simply had a higher rate of foodborne illness, but not so much higher that they were unsustainable. And of course in the modern era we have other ways of ensuring food safety, so you can’t extrapolate from modern food poisoning rates following modern food safety guidelines.

I do know that while most sushi is raw fish, I have never seen raw shrimp served; it is a regular staple but invariably cooked.

@ guy

I was introduced to the delight of raw prawns. It did seem odd at first but apparently, so long as they’re fresh its perfectly safe, and they are pretty yummy (or at least they were before I went veggie).

Raw scallops are pretty common where I am too.

@ EJ – some of the earliest settlements excavated in the UAE had deposits of butchered and cooked pig bones, and it’s pretty ruddy warm there in the season.

I was at a Natural History group meeting once in the UAE and an archaeologist came to tell us all about it. He showed some images of the bones they’d found and asked us to guess what they were. Everything from camel to human was suggested – except for pig.

I should note that as an atheist I find it entirely plausible that the dietary laws are meant to keep food safe but were created by people who did not understand foodborne illness and some rules may be entirely off-base even if the overall impact of the whole set is productive. And that they might ban foods that are entirely safe if handled properly because they were frequently handled improperly. And while I’m not really familiar with the preperation rules, I gather that they have the impact of reducing cross-contamination.

Though checking, apparently shellfish is a common food allergen, which may explain that.

Doug Wilson is back?! Oh dear God. I think I’ve lost some of my faith in humanity.

katz, I love your Mulan GIFs!

Bina, I love your Iggy Pop quote and image! Is it weird that now I want that dress?

sunnysombrera, I agree! I love learning more about clothes.

LindsayIrene, I agree that both of those things are sexy, though I personally wouldn’t find the woman in full battle regalia sexy because I’m a straight woman.

SJA, I so agree with you. How (outside of linguistics, which is a whole other kettle of fish) can an inanimate object naturally have a gender?

And – the whole old vs new Testament thing: except for the 10 commandments (which really boil down to don’t be a dick), if one bothers to read what Christ said, it is clear the old testament law is null and void. That is why Gentiles can become believers.

Point these idiots at the part in Revelations where John sees the forbidden food. That is a key passage on the old law being null&void.

Cosigned, I do *everything* single handed. That’s why I don’t consider idiots like these to truly be Christians. And I say this as a Christian.

From a cynical analysis, Peter in Acts basically figures out that a lot of Judaic law is going to be unpopular with the Gentiles, and rather than trying to convince potential recruits to Christianity that they need to give up cheeseburgers and foreskins, he just decides to have a ‘vision’ that declares that “anything God has declared clean is totes awesome”.

Other than food and uncut phalluses (phallussi? phallusese? phallii?), though, there’s no general description of how to apply that rule. So long as you can stick your head far enough up your own sphincter that you can ignore the evidence that sexual orientation is not a matter of personal choice, you can hold onto your bigotries.

there’s no general description of how to apply that rule

au contraire, Acts 10:28 is rather unambiguous.

God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.