This seems disingenuous. It looks like you're saying, essentially, "Ah, but nothing has inherent meaning!". Are you unable to understand the concept of "manipulation" in non-technical terms?

I understand the non-technical meaning of manipulation. It's when someone uses private information, or a power/skill imbalance to bring about a result that would not have occured given equality of capabilities. I don't see how you can avoid it without forbidding interaction between agents who are not of implausibly rare equalcapability.

There is a reply to the grandparent leading to a brief discussion on the intended meaning. Does it solve your objection?

Like, for example, "with women, you have to pretend that they don't have cheat codes (unlike with us tough-minded rational men)", or "bayes tells us we should all bang hot chicks".

That's an attitude I can get behind. Everyone has cheat codes. You may not have access to cheat codes for someone, if so this is weak evidence they have cheat codes for you, stronger evidence that either they are at least at your level or they are playing a different game.

Which is an attitude you can get behind? "With women, you have to pretend that they don't have cheat codes (unlike with us tough-minded rational men)"? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Did you understand my assertion?

You don't want the most rational response to your comments to be "this person rejects sexual equality", for example.

I reject one interpretation of that statement. I'm a gender egalitarian but I do not believe men and women have an equal distribution of capabilities or interests .

Okay, this is a reasonable position and I'm sure you're aware of its caveats. But can you clarify - in context, do you believe that my analysis accurately reflects your beliefs?