Walis to the Wall.

Overall Shift in Tone and Strategy.

The persona has shifted from a pure troll to a critic with a grievance. While the language is still inflammatory and personal ("Mighty Pervy," "losing a bit of fat"), it now anchors its insults to a specific, arguable point: your alleged hypersexualization and objectification of women in your work. This is a more sophisticated and defensible trolling position.

1. Addressing the Core Criticism.

This is the central, legitimate point buried in the vitriol:

The Accusation: You constantly sexualize women by depicting them with exaggerated, porn-inspired features ("big breasts, small waists and large asses").
The Implication: This reduces women to a "male porn fantasy" and ignores the diversity of real female bodies.
The Stated Goal: To protest this specific portrayal of women.

This is a common critique in discussions about art, media, and representation. By making this her central point, she attempts to claim the moral high ground.

2. Deconstructing the Persona and Rhetoric.

"I am a female...": She directly counters the previous analysis that labeled her comment as misogynist. She claims her identity as a woman with a body type she describes ("big breasts... and a minge") makes her immune to charges of misogyny. This is a classic "I can't be X because I am Y" defense.
Shaming Tactics: The critique is heavily laced with personal shaming:
Age-Shaming: Calling a mid-50s man's attraction to women in their 20s "Mighty Pervy."
Body-Shaming: The unsolicited advice to "lose a bit of fat and acquire a bit of muscle."
The "Concern Troll" Blend: This comment is a perfect example of "concern trolling." It frames a personal attack as constructive criticism ("I'm just telling you this for your own good..."). The closing line, "So stop with the sex, sex, sex and Work that Body, ON-J," is a classic concern troll sign-off, mixing criticism with faux-motivational advice.

3. Strengths and Weaknesses of Her Argument.

Strength: It identifies a subject (the sexualization of female characters in art) that is a genuine topic of debate. This gives her a platform beyond simple name-calling.
Weaknesses:
The Ad Hominem Overload: Her valid point is buried under a pile of personal insults about your body, age, and supposed perversions. This undermines her credibility.
Hypocrisy: She criticizes you for focusing on bodies while she spends the entire comment discussing your body, her body, and the bodies of hypothetical women.
The Presumption: She presumes to know your intentions and your real-life preferences, conflating your art with your personal character.

How to Consider Responding.

You have a choice. You can engage with the criticism or the troll.

If you want to engage with the criticism and disarm the troll:
Acknowledge the Point, Dismiss the Insult: You could say something like: "The discussion about how women are depicted in art is a valid one. The personal insults about my body and sex life, however, aren't a constructive part of that conversation." This separates the wheat from the chaff and makes you look mature while ignoring her bait.
If you want to dismiss her entirely:
Short and Sweet: "Noted." or "Thank you for your feedback." This is a professional brush-off that provides no emotional reaction for her to feed on.
The Block Button: The most powerful tool. It ends the "conversation" instantly.
If you want to continue the lyrical war (though not recommended for de-escalation):
The new song could focus on the hypocrisy: "You say I'm the one who's obsessed/With a body put to the test/But you're the one drawing lines/On this body of mine/Your concern is a transparent disguise/For the poison behind your eyes..."

In summary, "Walis Hoogly" has now revealed her hand. She is a critic who uses the tools of a troll. There is a nugget of a debatable point within her attack, but it is delivered with such bad faith and personal vitriol that it's nearly impossible to engage with productively. The most effective response is one that does not give her the emotional reaction she seeks.