Yeah apparently treating women as property doesn't violate Google's terms. Weird.

It is reported as being used for that, yes, but that is not the same as the platform endorsing the content as the GP was claiming.

This is in the context of using terminology that G/A lawyers and app approval personnel use, where no humanity is considered and everything strictly objective, eg "if <rule>, then application version denied".

I'm sure Apple will take a stance now that their PR team has to deal with this, but without any eyes on an app, the app can throw moral values to the curb and will only be obligated to follow the approval guidelines.

It's a reiteration of GP's fallacious argument, not an equivocacy to the app in the article. i.e. means id est, or "in other words".