I have to disagree.
I think it is cow.
I see what you did there, James, “cow”… very clever
Feminism is NOT gay, because feminists have no sense of humor.
Ok serious post.
i think transhumanism is mostly a rubbish idea, but i dont think the concept, is entirely rubbish. I believe the humanapes can only evolve so further. i believe at this moment they are devolving into tards worldwide. therefore, augmentation may be required to further their evolution, to bridge the cycle of tides (human saga is a saga of devolution, then building the broken pieces all over again.)
I believe this quote is total rubbish. I suppose little kids play with legos, make art, creative things, to get suzie’s twat next door hmmm? No, creative genius is simply a masculine trait, the drive to build is seperate from the drive to procreate. it is a survival tactic, to build shelter and weapons, or provide for the family or community. Its not related to the mechanism of entering sarah’s twat. If anything women destroy male creativity by damaging his psychology, modern feminism makes the modern male feel unwanted unloved and entirely useless. Not a great climate for creative output, but due to the male’s resilient nature, he still builds, still creates, even in an oppressive, lonely climate (something most fragile, pathetic female brats cannot do.)
I say no to a lot of women. I am not a masculinist. I piss on ismists. I would never fuck a feminist. I would not get my cucumber on the rise. They are the most sodden and humorless scurryings on the planet.
The male need to differentiate oneself from women is to procreate with them to expand self-possibilities, self-prolongation into the maximum future…if the male is not a unit first, how will he get selected when women evolved to sense and select for wholesomeness, and strong patterns of individuality?
This thread is interesting, because most of the serious participants are descriptively feminist by many definitions of the term, and yet here they are, almost to a person, criticizing feminism. Likely much of the debate between feminists and anti-feminists is actually between supporters of small-f, descriptive feminism, and detractors from big-F, political Feminism.
Case in point. ‘Women should be allowed to drive a car and vote’ is widely accepted now, as a result of organized feminist (small-f) movements. To the extent it spreads to places where it’s not currently taken for granted, it will be spread by organized feminist (small-f) movements.
The use of ‘people’ here is interesting. Certainly it seems that most of the ‘people’ in this thread are using ‘feminism’ to mean “crazy extreme stuff [they’re] all mostly tired of hearing about”. But probably most of the people who use feminism don’t mean anything like that (it is, after all, highly likely that the majority of people using the word feminism are self-identified feminists).
And you probably agree with the sentiment behind many, if not most uses of the word ‘feminist/ism’ too, as do most of the people in this thread criticizing feminism. You’re focusing on the vocal minority of extreme gender theory feminists, but there are plenty of moderate feminists who are still mostly talking about allowing women in the middle east to drive and divorce abusive husbands and feel the sun on their cheeks without being stoned to death.
You might not want to call what they do feminism, but if we define feminism as support for those social changes, virtually everyone here is a feminist (and many Feminists mean just that when they so identify themselves).
I think there’s a reasonable middle ground on this question. First, It’s worth clarifying that what you’re talking about is still the liberal wing of the liberal wing of liberal academia. This isn’t even mainstream feminism, and it’s certainly not all Feminists (there are plenty of anti-trans feminists).
Second, the middle ground position is that there are overlapping bell curves, which is demonstrably true. Both physically and psychologically, whatever traits tend across the entire population to be associated with one set of genitals are not so closely associated that knowing what set of genitals a person has will tell you much of anything about what to expect in terms of individual physical and psychological traits.
There are also outliers, edge cases that aren’t well captured by the strict dichotomy between men and women. There are edge cases between physically male and physically female. Even at the level of chromosomes, some people have three chromosomes, two Xs and a Y, and they tend to display physical characteristics that are a combination of male-like and female-like traits. That grouping doesn’t fit neatly into a men/women dichotomy.
We can certainly say that the dichotomy is good enough for most situations, and can be meaningfully applied in most situations. But there are some situations where it is too blunt, and there are some people who will be excluded by such language and overstated conceptual parsing of the world.
No one is forcing you to change your language, no one should, but if you know that the way you’re speaking is going to hurt someone who has done nothing to deserve to be hurt, and it costs you little to change the way you speak, shouldn’t you? We can quibble about how much it costs to change the way you speak, and how much it hurts the people you’re hurting, but certainly we can imagine some situations where it is the humane thing to do to accommodate the existence of not-quite male, not-quite-female people.
The extent you want to generalize from that point is also something that can also be quibbled about (if sexuality is genetically determined separate from biologic sex, maybe it’s worth accommodating those people as well). But I don’t think any of this is particularly radical.
What a load of BS
- The crazy feminists appear to constitute the majority, which, along with the movement’s name being biased in favor of female gender and thus misleading, turns people away from feminism. The crazy ones are not a minority anymore, they have become a majority.
But the only real way to argue that is by providing examples from the real world, and don’t you think that they show that an overwhelming majority is the batshit crazy ones? I mean, have you seen the entire crowds with their tits and genitalia exposed and written upon, demanding the right to be sluts (I can provide examples of this) and not suffer the consequences, like children do? And have you seen feminist art, that was actually attended by people? Or what the feminist organizations are doing, like denying men equality in court, or that they support discrimination based on skin color and gender in jobs and colleges (white cis male scum), or how feminists think they can’t be racist if they aren’t white/male or something? I can back all this up and show you the sources, on demand.
Is that your idea of moderacy, or do you have something else in mind?
The idea that feminism = advocacy of gender equality is about as sensible as blackism or whiteism being the name for a movement advocating racial equality. One must be an intensely brainwashed mangina to believe it.
- If you can impregnate a woman, you are male, if you can get impregnated, you are female.
What you’re suggesting is that people should have the power to change the definitions of words and cause confusion in others due to ideological reasons and then rightfully expect of others to comply based on emotional blackmail. I say no.
- The key word here is “appear”, which you use in the same way that word is used in the phrase, “things aren’t always as they appear”. If you’re going to cite news reports, social media, twitter, etc., I’m sure you’ll find more examples of crazy feminism. But those sources are not a representative sample, and you can’t draw conclusions about what the group looks like from a biased sample of that group.
You seem to agree that if we define feminism as “advocacy of gender equality”, then you and I are feminists. And certainly many feminists do in fact define the word that way. I agree that ‘feminism’-the-word is at odds with feminism-the-referent, but I still think by many definitions ‘feminism’-the-word applies by definition to most of the people posting in this thread.
- So someone who is infertile is what, neither male nor female? There are no sexes over the age of 70? Your narrow and dogmatic definition fails capture the world; it does not recognize the fact that male and female are categories we place on the world that aren’t strictly defined delimited in the world. As I said, the categories have value, and in the vase majority of uses they are meaningful and appropriate, but there are edge cases where the categorization breaks down.
EDIT: better word.
- Yes, appear, because I admittedly do not know the exact numbers, nor do I think the exact numbers are available. What I can do, is make judgments based on what I can, what I perceive. If they are not a source, what is? How is that a biased sample?
If a substantial number of KKK hate and advocate murder of black people, and others claim they don’t but still identify with KKK, what am I supposed to think about those others?
If a substantial number of feminists hate and advocate murder of men, and others claim they don’t yet they still identify as a feminist, what am I supposed to think about those others?
youtube.com/watch?v=Z-ZX5V4Qft4
But I guess as long as there aren’t concrete numbers, you can just keep playing evasion and trying to make it out as the crowds of crazy, vulgar, ignorant, bigoted feminists are the tiny minority, while the majority are just silent, hiding, there somewhere.
What’s worse is, even if we disregard the majority/minority, what the feminist organizations do and advocate exposes their intentions more than anything else, see:
[tab]Josh O’Brien (youtuber) comments:
"
NOW - The National Organisation for Women. Biggest feminist group in the US. Oppose shared parenting, called all fathers rights groups paedophiles.
London Feminist Network - Biggest feminist organisation in UK. Opposed a law that would give those accused (not charged or convicted, simply accused) of rape anonymity to protect from vigilante violence in the event of a false accusation.
Fawcett Society - Second biggest feminist organisation in the UK. Fighting to make a justice system that sends men and not women to prison, where women are NEVER imprisoned.
The US Gov’t - Repeats the wage gap despite it being debunked. Creates laws like Yes means Yes which criminalise consensual sex. Uses a biased (feminist created) model of rape that excludes men based on a study which actively and deliberately excluded male victims. Uses a biased (feminist created) model of DV which excludes men (except as perpetrators) based on nothing more than the whims of feminists."[/tab]
And if we define KKK as the organization for racial equality then what, you belong to them too? Why are some of you people trying to define words in a way as to detach them from how they are used in present, or have been used in the past?
No, I do not think the genders are equal, or should be equal, and under the law they should only be equal in certain aspects, not everything. Obviously, males shouldn’t have the right to enter female bathrooms, and females shouldn’t have the right to enter male bathrooms, for one.
- Someone who is infertile is irrelevant in an evolutionary context.
That is admittedly true, I have seen people whose gender I could not determine instantly, but only maybe 2 in my entire lifetime so I ended up performing verbal gymnastics in order to get them to identify themselves as he or she. That doesn’t mean I will call a person whatever they wish to be called because of their emotions.
Have you ever engaged with any actual feminists? They’re incredibly toxic and controlling. They get offended at everything, and attempt to manipulate you into acting the way they want you to by shaming and playing the victim, essentially, by behaving like little children and using taunts and insults on the level of children.
If you’re making a claim about the beliefs of the majority of feminists, you can look for scholarship that compares what people who self-identify as feminists state their beliefs to be against the population as a whole, and that use rigorous methods to get a representative sample of the population as a whole. The sample you’re going off of (assuming it is accurately described by something like “news reports, social media, twitter, etc.”) is biased because the majority of voices identifying as feminist that comes across in those media is not the same as the average voice of the population as a whole: they select for the most boisterous, the most outrageous, the outliers by definition. You can’t generalize to ‘the majority of feminism’ from ‘the majority of feminism that makes the nightly news’.
I’m not talking about a small number of feminists who happen not to fit the norm. Rather, the feminists you take to be the norm are actually more like the small number of KKK members who claim not to hate black people. Again, a source more robust that Twitter will back this up. Here’s a paper that compared self-identified feminists to nonfeminists and found that feminists were generally less hostile towards men than nonfeminists. Don’t take that one as gospel, I’m sure there are other studies that have found otherwise; best would be a meta-study of questions like these. But certainly this study, that actually lays out a methodology and allows statistical inference within a known confidence interval, is better than the picture of feminism that randomly bombards you through the tubes.
Also, somewhat an aside: consider the difference between equity feminism and gender feminism. Equity feminism makes many fewer claims than are being ascribed to feminism here, and it’s worth exploring if only to note that feminism is not a monolith, and generalization are likely to elide distinct subsets that are very much opposed in their political and moral beliefs.
This is a little cold. Emotional harm is real harm. Modern societies recognize many purely emotional torts and crimes, because emotional harm is costly to individuals.
And refusing to recognize someone’s existence is a particularly pernicious form of emotional harm. Humans are social animals, and we have a strong instinct to perceive social othering as a threat to our survival (evolutionarily, it was).
That said, it’s only a little cold. If it’s too much trouble to avoid the possibility of hurting someone, no one’s making you do it. 99% of the people you interact with won’t notice, because they’ve made the same choice (or simply avoided choosing by not thinking too deeply about the question).
I went to one of the most liberal schools in the country for undergrad; it actually started as a women’s college, and when I was there it was still very much a feminist institution, if there is such a thing. So I’ve interacted with enough self-identified feminists to know that there are toxic feminists and there are sweet feminists and there are awesome feminists, just as there are toxic and sweet and awesome people in just about any sizable subset of the whole. I won’t pretend my sample was representative, but certainly its bias was in a different direction from that of yours.
I admire your patience, but you’re wasting your time, Carleas. Misogynist MRA’s and Gamergaters have a profound hatred for women that doesn’t allow for women to express their humanity or anything else. Just look at their harassment, abuse, and/or death threats they’ve sent to Anita Sarkeesian, Brianne Wu, and Zoe Quinn. You might as well try to convince Nazis of a Jew’s rights and humanity…total waste of time.
I wish that I could ask if you are kidding me, but I know better. Could there possibly be a more naive, absolutely hypnotized moronic belief than what you have expressed? I doubt it.
How does the level of abuse relate to actual accuracy of expression? Absolutely ZERO. Whether women, on average, have been abused or not, is entirely an issue of what the purpose of life happens to be. Do you have even the slightest inkling of what that might be? I am pretty certain that you do not.
Everyone; male or female, white or black, Jewish or Nazi, human or animal,… are ALL, every one, abused by the others. And the reason is that none of them have yet to figure out what actually, really works. But even if they had, how would YOU know, one way or another?
You profess that anyone who doesn’t believe that women are superior to men (being “equal” is not an option), are [b]“women HATERS!!!”
Absolute, total, 100% BULLSHIT!!
[/b]
I personally do not believe that the average woman and the average man are equal in almost any regard. Yet I have a hard time hating any woman, despite how ridiculous she might behave (despite how very, very common her hateful behavior might be).
The simple truth is that you express the very common, embarrassingly common and vulgar, propaganda of the day. You are expressing NO philosophical understanding of your real situation what … - … so … - … ever.
Thank you for confirming everything I said in my first post. You are a perfect example of the troglodytic misogynist who couldn’t put together two coherent sentences, much less two coherent thoughts, if you tried. So, the only one expressing a hypnotized moronic belief is you, and I can’t imagine a more moronic one ever. You are so hypnotized by your fear of women, and your hatred of them for consistently resisting your repugnant advances, that you can’t think straight on the subject. So, I bid you goodbye to continue your hatred for women and your desperate hopes one of them might like you…which will never happen. So, welcome to my ignore list, Mr. MRA, and enjoy your women-hating company.
And YOU are the “perfect” example (not that you could possibly perfect anything) of the absolutely blind, hypnotized [size=200]Misandrist[/size], having (again) ABSOLUTELY ZERO CLUE what is really going on ALL around YOU.
You babble the most common and vulgar propaganda of the new age hatred of Man (apparently expecting women to love you for sucking their privates).
Most pathetic … beyond comment.
A Misandrist Drone.
And btw, I have noticed that some of the MOST intelligent and civilized people that I have met online (women included), are on your ignore list. I suspect that being on such a list is a compliment. More people should strive for such accomplishment.
I doubt it. Very few people seem to self-identify as feminists, for just the reason I said- to self identify as a feminist implies a lot more than "women should be allowed to wear long pants and work outside the home". It's similar to how a person doesn't call themselves 'leftist' because they want black people to be able to vote and think alcohol should be legal (pretending for a moment that progressives supported either of these things when they were controversial). A person identifies as a group if they are in favor of the things the group is currently working on, not things from a century ago.
It would be NICE if the feminists working to protect women in the Middle East from being stoned for showing their ankles outnumbered the feminists trying to define the word ‘bossy’ as a microagression, but I see no evidence that this is the case- again, speaking just of those people who present themselves as “I am a feminist”, not just people that you are classifying as a feminist because they agree wth what feminists did in the 1800’s. Of course, there could be millions of feminists working on Middle-East issues that don’t speak English and so don’t get media exposure in English-speaking-space.
There is no liberal wing of academia, because that would be to imply there are wings in academia where it is absent. There is academia, which has been taken over by the liberal wing of the general population. Also, progressivism more so than other positions has the dubious honor of always moving towards something new- so what you’re thinking of as fringe may in fact just be ‘cutting edge’.
I'm sorry, but I can't really take the conversation seriously if you means to imply that in 2015 the left isn't about policing language.
Did you know that there’s a bot active on Twitter that will send you a message correcting you if you refer to Caitlyn Jenner as a ‘he’?
Nobody is forcing me to change my language? I’m almost 40. I could write a fucking book about the things people are no longer allowed to say because of the left totally not trying to force people to change their language in my lifetime, and trannies are gonna be any different, eh? Do I really need to start listing the people who have been shamed in to public tearful apologies, lost their jobs, and etc. just in the past couple years because they wore a fucking shirt a feminist didn’t like, or said something about women in the work place that a feminist didn’t want to hear, or applied the wrong gender-pronoun to some self-mutilating tranny, etc.? Be honest- did me saying ‘self-mutiliating tranny’ just now spark in you a desire to punish me?
Not trying to force me to change my language. Tell it to the Redskins.
Anyway, there’s all sorts of ways a persons genitals and genetics can be screwed up such that standard gender definitions don’t apply to them very well. We generally don’t define a creature by it’s disordered states- unless it’s related to human sexuality. I feel totally comfortable saying “humans have two legs” without worrying that somebody is going to jump out of the bushes and try to get me fired from my job or kicked off this site because I have somehow revealed my hatred of amputees by such a statement*. But go say humans have two genders on Tumblr or Twitter, and see how long it is before somebody is taking pictures outside your house and trying to ruin your life.
-
- Oh, but give it time, I suppose.
Seriously? This is the kind of thing you write the day you get off being banned? There is just no reason to keep you on this website.
Carleas
About scholarship, are you aware that there are some female only scholarships, as well as female only universities? Yet it was recently a major deal when a scientist expressed that it would be better if males and females were divided into 2 groups when working in the lab, because attraction to the opposite sex can be distracting.
I do not give a shit what somebody who says they are feminist, but are never heard or seen, does. So just like I assume you don’t care if there is, somewhere, some silent majority of KKK who actually like black people more than majority, what we observe by the organization itself and its main spokesmen, is that they hate black people, no? I care what the most important people of the movement say, and what the organizations of the movement do. If a good portion, perhaps even a majority of the most prominent and famous feminists (or KKK) blatantly, openly hate men (or black people), then the movement is a man-hating (black people hating) one regardless of what this supposed hidden majority supposedly thinks but never expresses outloud or puts into work because they are silent or whatever.
There is no better source for what happens in reality than reality itself. A feminist study examining whether feminists or nonfeminists hate men more. Ha! That is worthless to me, feminists are infamous for their tendency to lie and distort data and censor opposing views. If you ask feminists if they care about men, most of the moderate ones, or at least those who pretend to be moderate, will say they do, yet they do absolutely nothing to help men gain equality in court f.e. And I understand that, that is how women are, they don’t care about men, nor should they - men should care about themselves, all I ask is that feminists stop lying and pretending that they do care, when all their actions prove the opposite.
Feminists are just a minority subgroup in the larger group of women, the other women constituting non-feminists.
Yet, how many examples do you know of non-feminists expressing the kind of hatred towards men that feminists do? Not just a particular man, or a type of man (which I can understand and sometimes agree with), but MEN in general, and masculinity.
[tab]“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” - Valerie Solanas
“I feel that “man-hating” is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” - Robin Morgan
“Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.” - Andrea Dworkin
“I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men.” - Judith Levine
“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” - Sally Miller Gearhart
“If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males” - Mary Daly
“As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women … he can sexually molest his daughters … the vast majority of men in the world do one or more of the above” - Marilyn French
“They [men unjustly accused of rape] have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. ‘How do I see women?’ ‘If I didn’t violate her, could I have?’ ‘Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?’ Those are good questions.” - Catherine Comins
“Heterosexuality is a die-hard custom through which male-supremacist institutions insure their own perpetuity and control over us. Women are kept, maintained and contained through terror, violence, and the spray of semen” - Cheryl L. Clarke[/tab]
I’m aware of the distinction, and yes, equity feminism isn’t nearly as crazy, but sadly, it is the minority.
I strive to be rational and in control of my emotions. If I treated other people differently than how I prefer to be treated, it ironically means I would just be lying in their faces and actually considering them so inferior and pathetic, that they cannot take honesty and criticism (which is how I think most people are, but you might have a problem with it).
As I said, I do try to pay attention to people’s emotions within reason, but if somebody with a dick, who looks like a male, asks me to call them a female or the other way around, I would refuse.
What’s worse is when the trannies mistake genuine interest and ignorance for ill-intentions. So for example, I meet a female turned male with a vagina, so I ask what gender they identify with, and they get offended as if I’m trying to insult them. I think it has to do more with their self-hatred and insecurity than anything else. Maybe also the bigotry of others. I expressed this opinion, that I ask trannies sincere questions due to unfamiliarity with them, on a feminist forum and I was censored and my post deleted because I didn’t submit to them and just accept whatever they say. The feminist forum was spacefem if you’re interested, they regularly delete any opinions which run contrary to theirs, even if they are expressed politely and without a single insult. That’s my experience, at least, and my experiences on YouTube are similar.
James, if you have to use bold, caps lock, 200 px font, and eight exclamation marks to make your point, you should ask yourself if your position is still sound when spoken with an indoor voice.
I take as a given that the people I’m talking to are sincere and engaging in good faith, such that if they’re wrong they’re either mistaken or presenting arguments that they disagree with but nevertheless find problematic for my position. Which makes the conversation worthwhile in two respects: first, it is possible to change minds, and to influence people who are interested in the truth. And second, even if no one is convinced, I am forced to think through my position, to see and address its weaknesses. Even if I move no one else closer towards an accurate perception of the word, I will be moved, and that is worth my time.
Uccisore, there seems to be a distinction in feminism (as in many other areas of politics) between feminism as an absolute position and feminism as a relative position. Your point about leftism is good, except that it is significant to some discussions that the leftism of yesterday is the common sense of today. If we think of leftism as “go left from here”, then those beliefs aren’t leftist. But if we think of leftism as an absolute constellation of specific beliefs regarding the relationship of individuals to society, then racial equality can still be a leftist idea (though I agree there’s reason to think it is better cast as an individualist ideal).
Similarly, feminism has in the past been a movement to extend full legal agency to women. Now that everyone accepts women’s legal agency, we can think of feminism as “more power to women from here”, which is what you seem to be doing, or we can think of it as the same movement to extend full legal agency to women.
And really, it’s both. As I said earlier, by some definitions of feminism, virtually everyone in the western world is descriptively a feminist, because early feminists won their fights and women can own property and vote (somewhere around 90% of the US population thinks that’s a good thing). That is a definition of feminism.
So perhaps as a preliminary question, we should discuss why we’re even concerned with the most popular usage. Most uses of the word “philosophy” use it to mean something like an aphorism (or, if Google ads is to be believed, a brand of cosmetics), but that’s not how we use it here and we should have no problem with the name “I Love Philosophy”.
It seems like when people say things like “feminism is horse shit”, they mean “a specific version of feminism that is particularly vulnerable to criticism (and may in fact be a strawman) is horseshit”.
I actually just searched Twitter for the phrase “I am a feminist”, and I expected to find almost exclusively rabid feminists of the type you’ve described, but I was surprised that only a few of the top couple dozen responses were of that kind; only one was explicitly gender feminist, and only one said that she hates men. Many more were statements about support for equality generally, and several were people explaining that e.g. they don’t like what happened to Tim Hunt even though they identify as a feminist.
I think this latter is probably part of a movement (that may or may not be explicit) to ‘reclaim’ ‘feminism’. I think we’ll see a lot of that in the coming US election cycle as certain Hillary supporters accuse her detractors of hating all women, and her detractors insist that they really just don’t like Hillary as a person.
You’re right, I overstated. Let me put it much more narrowly: the coercive power of the state is not being used to restrict your ability to continue to offend people, at least in the US, and I agree that it should not. I also acknowledge that there have been incidents of language-policing virtual mob violence. And I agree that that’s not a great thing for society, and I’m not arguing that anyone should lose their jobs for calling Ms. Jenner “he”.
Nor do I think the threat of mob justice is a good reason to avoid calling transgendered people by the gender pronouns they’ve rejected. I do, however, think there are good reasons.
No, they are annecdotal, as would be the list of people who have been groped on the subway or faced full-on, old-school sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace. Names play good politics, but they don’t make for sound reasoning. I think we can both concede that some of the complaints on either side are legitimate. It seems like it’s more important to ask whether the theory on either side is better, and/or what portion of complaints on either side are legitimate.
As I’ve said, in many context you won’t be wrong to say that there are two genders. However, in some cases, you are wrong to say that humans have two legs. Particularly, if you’re hanging out with an amputee, you’d probably extend them the courtesy of not suggesting that they’re not human because they don’t have two legs. You’d probably avoid mentioning legs, or running, or soccer or what-have-you, out of basic decency. I don’t think extending trans people the same level of courtesy is a big ask.
Also, it’s worth noting that the crime of being an amputee does not bear the death penalty in any society of which I’m aware. People still get killed, both with and without state sanction, for stepping out of gender lines.
Certainly we can agree on that. But to assert that this somehow bolsters your argument is question-begging. How do we determing what “reality itself” shows? Certainly any academic field, feminist or otherwise, would hold that the unanalysed perception of what one takes away from an hour on Twitter is a bad representation of “reality itself”, for a lot of reasons. And rigorous social science takes steps to address the problems with this mode of examining the world, or at least to qualify the takeaways from it. If you want to recast your position as one big “I feel” statement, I’d have no objection.
One way to interpret this is “all feminists are [xyz]”. Another way is “feminists who strongly identify as such to the point where they participate in/run a forum dedicated to feminism are [xyz]”. Another is that feminist forums are lighting rods for the other extreme: crazed anti-feminist, actual women-hating men, and when you come in unwilling to match your tone to the tone of the site, they smell a problem they’ve seen a hundred times before, and so they respond with what appears from the outside as [xyz].
In the latter case, they aren’t right to silence you, but they are understandable and their actions can be attributed to something other than malice or self-deception. Unfortunately for the world, not every site is ILP, and if you go into a support forum the way you go into a discussion of feminism here, it is likely they will not appreciate your participation.
Incredible. And he’s the administrator of this forum.
Where have I ever even MENTIONED Twitter in my previous posts, much less rested my argument on Twitter?
What I did mention as a real-life example, is what feminists organization do, which is explicitly anti-male.
If KKK get people to write papers and books for them claiming that KKK aren’t bigoted against blacks, but are, in fact, less so than the rest of the population, but KKK consistently try to pass racist laws, support the racist laws already in place, and advocate the murder of blacks (like some feminists advocate the murder of men, which I also provided examples of), would you believe the papers and books, aka, how those with a political agenda try to depict reality, or how you observe it yourself?
Do you still refuse to recognize the similarity of the modern radical left to the radical right? Check this out:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-ZX5V4Qft4[/youtube]
Also see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory