Considering that your comment at issue didn't actually contain a gratuitous use of "female", you perhaps shouldn't focus too much of your argument on that bit and instead defend yourself only in regards to what you're actually being accused of.
You've repeatedly used the term "natural right" without defining what you mean by that, and without explaining why income taxes are a particularly egregious infringement on those rights. All you've done vaguely state that income taxes infringe on a category of rights that by their very name can only be infringed unjustly.
"Pernicious" is not a word that anyone uses conversationally today. It's archaic. (According to Google Ngram, usage of "pernicious" peaked around the time of the American Revolution.) A phrase like "pernicious to liberty" is the kind of thing you write when you want to give the impression that you're quoting a famous scholar from a few centuries ago. It does nothing to explain how income taxes are exceptionally harmful to liberty compared to other means of funding a government. This is not to say that you cannot use the word "pernicious", but your use of it is remarkable. In reality, you're borrowing language from what seems to be a contemporary anti-tax crackpot.
All you did was use uncommon language to repeatedly assert that income taxes are bad. You said nothing to actually support that assertion or provide any more detail. There was nothing superficial or peripheral about your word choice; it was clearly the most carefully thought out aspect of your comment. There's no content in your comment to have a meaningful discussion about except the rhetorical tactics and allusions.
And to cap it off, your first response to criticism was an incorrect usage of the term ad hominem.