The NationStates Feminist Thread

[Ostroeuropa]

As i've said before, I don't read Elams shit. I've read two articles and decided he isn't worth my time.
Which is a common opinion among the MRM, as i've also pointed out before.

It's also worth pointing out that elam explicitly says he's doing it to get attention and thinks he's the malcolm x of the movement.

Most MRAs i talk to think he's a prat.

I'm allowed to distance myself from him and denounce him and such, and so is the movement, because guess what.

We didn't up and install him into a place where he has power over peoples lives, then um and ah about how we made a mistake but it certainly isn't reflective of our movement. (Despite us constantly pulling this shit.)

We can denounce him and such because, at the end of it, he's just some asshole with a blog.

Bindel isn't.

That's a big difference. I've never claimed the MRM is without hateful idiots. What i've claimed is it isn't a hate movement, and feminism is.
There is a clear difference between hateful people in the MRM, and hateful people in feminism.

The latter get supported by the movement into positions of authority.
The former get "Ehh, they kinda suck."

Again, those in glass houses... Claiming that feminism is a hateful movement, all of it, like you often do, is, really, childish. Some elements of the movement are shit, but you condemning the entirety of it smacks me of pettiness and sounds like you're being rabid.

Until you recognize that feminism, as a movement, has a history of oppressing men and that its' relationship on the whole has been oppressive to them, you are a part of the problem because you're erasing male victimization.

It's, again, like arguing that because not all cops are racist that things are fine.

"Why don't you be more appreciative of the fact our movement sometimes treats you like a human being? It's not like it's ALWAYS treating you like dirt or oppressing you, sometimes it's in our interests to treat you better than that because doing so gets us something we want, so see? We can agree on things and be decent to eachother! And sometimes we're feeling benevolent instead of masochistic, but it's not like it's, you know, all the time that this movement is awful to you, so Why do you keep insisting the feminist movements relationship with men is that it oppresses them? You must just not understand feminism. I mean, we've got a black president and everything. I just don't get what these people want from us. Why can't they just admit we're not a bigoted organization. It's them though, not us. I'm sure of that. All those instances of discrimination, those are akin to isolated incidents or something. If you aren't comfortable talking about your experience here, that's your fault. You just don't get feminism. It's not that we don't get your experience of it and refuse to understand that we are privileged in it, that's not possible, because some men tell us they don't agree with you... oh well yeh, but... Yeh, but your women supporters have internalized knees, so that's different."

Until you recognize that feminisms rhetoric, frame of reference, focus, history, terminology, etc, is all steeped in shit that causes the movement to oppress men, you're a part of the problem.

I'd really like to know why you call yourself a feminist. Seriously. What about identifying with them appeals to you. What have they done to make you identify with them.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

https://genderidentitywatch.files.wordp ... ardian.pdf
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyy ... r-article/

There you go. I think you'll find my quotes are verbatim.

Okay, from your link

Kimberley Nixon, a male to female transsexual, to train as a counsellor of female rape victims. In 2002, Nixon had won $7,500, the highest amount ever awarded by the tribunal, for injury to "her dignity".
The arrogance is staggering: having not experienced life as a "woman" until middle age, Nixon assumed "she" would be suitable to counsel women who have chosen to access a service that offers support from women who have suffered similar experiences, not from a man in a dress!

I think that the words of Julie Bindel are exaggerated, but the context is pretty explaining.
ALL Feminists (including ALL funfems) and MOST women wouldn't have NEVER accepted a man as a counsellor of female rape victims: we all know that's the truth.
Julie Bindel is extending the very same concept to a person having not experienced life as a woman until middle age.
She's exaggerated? Yes.
She's wrong? No.
If a man cannot be a good counsellor of female rape victims (and I have yet to see a single Feminist or even funfem endorsing a man as counsellor of female rape victims!!!) then even a person having not experienced life as a woman until middle age cannot be a good counsellor of female rape victims.
Logic matters.

"Man in a dress"

The transphobia is showing in your "source," Chessmistress....

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

https://genderidentitywatch.files.wordp ... ardian.pdf
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyy ... r-article/

There you go. I think you'll find my quotes are verbatim.

Okay, from your link

Kimberley Nixon, a male to female transsexual, to train as a counsellor of female rape victims. In 2002, Nixon had won $7,500, the highest amount ever awarded by the tribunal, for injury to "her dignity".
The arrogance is staggering: having not experienced life as a "woman" until middle age, Nixon assumed "she" would be suitable to counsel women who have chosen to access a service that offers support from women who have suffered similar experiences, not from a man in a dress!

I think that the words of Julie Bindel are exaggerated, but the context is pretty explaining.
ALL Feminists (including ALL funfems) and MOST women wouldn't have NEVER accepted a man as a counsellor of female rape victims: we all know that's the truth.
Julie Bindel is extending the very same concept to a person having not experienced life as a woman until middle age.
She's exaggerated? Yes.
She's wrong? No.
If a man cannot be a good counsellor of female rape victims (and I have yet to see a single Feminist or even funfem endorsing a man as counsellor of female rape victims!!!) then even a person having not experienced life as a woman until middle age cannot be a good counsellor of female rape victims.
Logic matters.

"Man in a dress"
The transphobia of your "source" is showing.... you might wanna cover that up.

[Italios]

Agreed - there's a lot of "physician heal thyself" going on.

Facing facts, both feminism and MRAs have a lot of really hateful elements, and both seem to have at least some level of really decent elements. The only significant difference that I see is radfems have institutional power to oppress and are using it, while MRAs lack it.

That's a big difference. It means the MRM doesn't have anything to actually fix. We can't prevent morons joining our movement. We DO try and combat sexism in our members from an androcentric perspective, but when that fails we mostly we just allow men to vent if they feel the need to.

Feminism on the other hand, is clearly fucking broken, because it keeps installing raving lunatics into positions of power.

Just because the "leaders" of feminism are radical, and yes, raving lunatics, does not mean every feminist is a raving lunatic. Ask a more mellow feminist and they might not agree with their opinions and ideas on opressing the other gender.

[Galloism]

https://genderidentitywatch.files.wordp ... ardian.pdf
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyy ... r-article/

There you go. I think you'll find my quotes are verbatim.

Okay, from your link

Kimberley Nixon, a male to female transsexual, to train as a counsellor of female rape victims. In 2002, Nixon had won $7,500, the highest amount ever awarded by the tribunal, for injury to "her dignity".
The arrogance is staggering: having not experienced life as a "woman" until middle age, Nixon assumed "she" would be suitable to counsel women who have chosen to access a service that offers support from women who have suffered similar experiences, not from a man in a dress!

I think that the words of Julie Bindel are exaggerated, but the context is pretty explaining.
ALL Feminists (including ALL funfems) and MOST women wouldn't have NEVER accepted a man as a counsellor of female rape victims: we all know that's the truth.
Julie Bindel is extending the very same concept to a person having not experienced life as a woman until middle age.
She's exaggerated? Yes.
She's wrong? No.
If a man cannot be a good counsellor of female rape victims (and I have yet to see a single Feminist or even funfem endorsing a man as counsellor of female rape victims!!!) then even a person having not experienced life as a woman until middle age cannot be a good counsellor of female rape victims.
Logic matters.

Honestly, a man who was a rape victim would be in a much better position to counsel female rape victims compared to a woman who never has been raped.

It's an irrelevant distinction anyway - Kimberley IS a woman. She's a woman who was counseling female rape victims, and got the boot because they didn't approve of the fact that she was born as a gender she didn't identify with. She changed that, but she was still discriminated against.

[Val Halla]

That's a big difference. It means the MRM doesn't have anything to actually fix. We can't prevent morons joining our movement. We DO try and combat sexism in our members from an androcentric perspective, but when that fails we mostly we just allow men to vent if they feel the need to.

Feminism on the other hand, is clearly fucking broken, because it keeps installing raving lunatics into positions of power.

Just because the "leaders" of feminism are radical, and yes, raving lunatics, does not mean every feminist is a raving lunatic. Ask a more mellow feminist and they might not agree with their opinions and ideas on opressing the other gender.

It's like saying that Donald Trump is what every republican is like

[Natapoc]

He's not the Malcolm x of your movement. No one in the manosphere is anything close to Malcolm x and any attempt at association is laughable. Malcolm x was not a trollish blogger with a delusional worldview. He was an activist out to change the world. Most of the manosphere only gets off Reddit and 4chan to shoot up schools. That's not activism.

You did read up on Malcolm X, right? The man was calling for segregation, to keep white people away from black people. If you're looking for the heroic, world changing activist, his name was Martin Luther King Jr. Malcolm may have changed some of his views near his death, but there's no denying he started as a radical.

Yes I have. Martin Luther King Jr was an awesome world-changing activist... And he was able to make change because the racist ruling class was forced into a position of either accepting a peaceful MLK inspired movement or a revolutionary Malcolm X style movement.

In other words, Marten Luther King Jr was enabled partly by Malcolm X.

[Hirota]

Just because the "leaders" of feminism are radical, and yes, raving lunatics, does not mean every feminist is a raving lunatic. Ask a more mellow feminist and they might not agree with their opinions and ideas on opressing the other gender.

I agree that's probably the case.

So, how precisely did the "leaders" of feminism become as influential as they are, yet more mellow feminists at least appear to be less so?

[Valystria]

Oh, yeh. Chessmistress should answer Valystrias posts.

It's interesting how Chessmistress can find the time to reply to so many other posts but not the ones that inconvenience her.

Maybe if it's brought up enough times someday a response will be extracted.

viewtopic.php?p=26226528#p26226528

[Ostroeuropa]

That's a big difference. It means the MRM doesn't have anything to actually fix. We can't prevent morons joining our movement. We DO try and combat sexism in our members from an androcentric perspective, but when that fails we mostly we just allow men to vent if they feel the need to.

Feminism on the other hand, is clearly fucking broken, because it keeps installing raving lunatics into positions of power.

Just because the "leaders" of feminism are radical, and yes, raving lunatics, does not mean every feminist is a raving lunatic. Ask a more mellow feminist and they might not agree with their opinions and ideas on opressing the other gender.

The only thing those people do is whitewash the movements history, legitimize identifying as a bigot, and prevent actual equality.
Moderate feminists are a problem too.

For one thing it's simply not possible to be an advocate for equality if you go around shouting nigger at black people as a friendly way of trying to greet them to come talk to you about their experience of racism.

Calling yourself a feminist immediately shuts down conversation with many victimized men, and reveals you don't care about them as much as you care about your label.

[Galloism]

Again, those in glass houses... Claiming that feminism is a hateful movement, all of it, like you often do, is, really, childish. Some elements of the movement are shit, but you condemning the entirety of it smacks me of pettiness and sounds like you're being rabid.

Until you recognize that feminism, as a movement, has a history of oppressing men and that its' relationship on the whole has been oppressive to them, you are a part of the problem because you're erasing male victimization.

It's, again, like arguing that because not all cops are racist that things are fine.

Feminism has been conflicted on the issue of men's issues. Keep in mind that the de jure change from statutory rape applying ONLY to female victims to applying to victims of both genders was brought about by liberal feminists. Radical feminists opposed it.

It's flat out false to say feminism has "always works against male issues". It's more complicated.

"Why don't you be more appreciative of the fact our movement sometimes treats you like a human being? It's not like it's ALWAYS treating you like dirt or oppressing you, sometimes it's in our interests to treat you better than that because doing so gets us something we want, so see? We can agree on things and be decent to eachother! And sometimes we're feeling benevolent instead of masochistic, but it's not like it's, you know, all the time that this movement is awful to you, so Why do you keep insisting the feminist movements relationship with men is that it oppresses them? You must just not understand feminism. I mean, we've got a black president and everything. I just don't get what these people want from us. Why can't they just admit we're not a bigoted organization. It's them though, not us. I'm sure of that. All those instances of discrimination, those are akin to isolated incidents or something. If you aren't comfortable talking about your experience here, that's your fault. You just don't get feminism. It's not that we don't get your experience of it and refuse to understand that we are privileged in it, that's not possible, because some men tell us they don't agree with you... oh well yeh, but... Yeh, but your women supporters have internalized knees, so that's different."

Until you recognize that feminisms rhetoric, frame of reference, focus, history, terminology, etc, is all steeped in shit that causes the movement to oppress men, you're a part of the problem.

I'd really like to know why you call yourself a feminist. Seriously. What about identifying with them appeals to you. What have they done to make you identify with them.

There's plenty. The right to vote, the right to work outside the home, maintaining abortion rights, etc etc etc.

They've not always done everything right, but a person would have to be flat out delusional not to recognize the accomplishments that feminism HAS achieved.

[Ostroeuropa]

Just because the "leaders" of feminism are radical, and yes, raving lunatics, does not mean every feminist is a raving lunatic. Ask a more mellow feminist and they might not agree with their opinions and ideas on opressing the other gender.

It's like saying that Donald Trump is what every republican is like

You mean the frontrunner.

It's more like if the republican party had nominated Donald Trump every year for 40 years, and showed no signs of stopping.

At that point, if you join the republican party, i'm going to say "Why the fuck do you support donald trump?"

[Chessmistress]

Agreed - there's a lot of "physician heal thyself" going on.

Facing facts, both feminism and MRAs have a lot of really hateful elements, and both seem to have at least some level of really decent elements. The only significant difference that I see is radfems have institutional power to oppress and are using it, while MRAs lack it.

I oppose them and I will do everything in my power to push them from this movement into the dustbin of history.

You cannot, and want you know why?
You was NOT EVEN AWARE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF RADICAL FEMINISM BEFORE I JOINED THIS SITE.
And you're still trying to silence me, not to oppose me with logical arguments

[Galloism]

I oppose them and I will do everything in my power to push them from this movement into the dustbin of history.

You cannot, and want you know why?
You was NOT EVEN AWARE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF RADICAL FEMINISM BEFORE I JOINED THIS SITE.
And you're still trying to silence me, not to oppose me with logical arguments

That's because you've shown yourself immune to logic.

I'll just put this back here again, since it's still unanswered.

Actively preventing a real consciousness regarding men raped by women wouldn't be simply a bigoted position: bigots are really bad but not totally evil, due most bigots thinks in good faith that their positions are good for humanity.
Actively preventing a real consciousness regarding men raped by women would be EVIL.

So Mary Koss is evil - she's used her position on gender studies to prevent a real consciousness regarding men raped by women. Keep in mind, the CDC used her definition to exclude male victims of female rape from the definition of rape victims, an action that resulted in the suppression of known facts:

That, among adults, male victim rape is almost as common as female victim rape in the current timeframe.

But that's not what Mary Koss did: you're quoting her out of context.

Really? Here's the context:

A further issue is the sex neutrality of reform statutes, which have been ignored in all but a handful of studies. Instead, focus has been restricted to female victims. [b]This restriction makes practical sense because over 90% of rapes identified in the National Crime Victimization Survey involve female victims. Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the word rape to instances where male victims are penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman. (E.G. struckman johnson 1991) A final problem is the practice of summing attempts and completed rapes. Although it follows common-law practice to include attempted rapes in the figure presented as "rape prevalence", separate reporting of attempted and completed rapes is less prone to confusion when comparing across studies.

Adding context doesn't help. In fact, it makes it worse.

Incidentally, the study she criticized for including male victims of rape showed that 16% of men at college reported forced sexual intercourse where they were an unwilling participant. Roughly 1 in 6, incidentally.

http://www.uvm.edu/~vtconn/v19/manzano.html

Now, it's a limited study, but Koss KNEW that female on male rape was prevalent. She read the study, or she wouldn't have cited it. She then chose to weasel word her definition to exclude male victims of rape, fully knowing that it was prevalent. Her weasel-word definition is now used by the CDC to erase male victims of rape.

And she knows it.

That's evil.

[Ostroeuropa]

Until you recognize that feminism, as a movement, has a history of oppressing men and that its' relationship on the whole has been oppressive to them, you are a part of the problem because you're erasing male victimization.

It's, again, like arguing that because not all cops are racist that things are fine.

Feminism has been conflicted on the issue of men's issues. Keep in mind that the de jure change from statutory rape applying ONLY to female victims to applying to victims of both genders was brought about by liberal feminists. Radical feminists opposed it.

It's flat out false to say feminism has "always works against male issues". It's more complicated.

Until you recognize that feminisms rhetoric, frame of reference, focus, history, terminology, etc, is all steeped in shit that causes the movement to oppress men, you're a part of the problem.

I'd really like to know why you call yourself a feminist. Seriously. What about identifying with them appeals to you. What have they done to make you identify with them.

There's plenty. The right to vote, the right to work outside the home, maintaining abortion rights, etc etc etc.

They've not always done everything right, but a person would have to be flat out delusional not to recognize the accomplishments that feminism HAS achieved.

The vote wasn't feminists. It's appropriated by feminists as one of their accomplishments, but it's not actually related at all to feminist theory or the like.

I've not denied that hate groups can do some very nice things for the ingroup. That seems fairly obvious.

As for the liberal feminists, i've already gone over how their updated definition isn't actually equal and doesn't cover both sexes equally.

I'm going to be charitable and say they just fucked up because of their gynocentric worldview, rather than did it on purpose.

So at best they're well meaning and incompetent. Still not a ringing endorsement.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I oppose them and I will do everything in my power to push them from this movement into the dustbin of history.

You cannot, and want you know why?
You was NOT EVEN AWARE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF RADICAL FEMINISM BEFORE I JOINED THIS SITE.
And you're still trying to silence me, not to oppose me with logical arguments

We all learned logic was pointless with you a long time ago.

You really should answer Gallo.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Again, those in glass houses... Claiming that feminism is a hateful movement, all of it, like you often do, is, really, childish. Some elements of the movement are shit, but you condemning the entirety of it smacks me of pettiness and sounds like you're being rabid.

Until you recognize that feminism, as a movement, has a history of oppressing men and that its' relationship on the whole has been oppressive to them, you are a part of the problem because you're erasing male victimization.

It's, again, like arguing that because not all cops are racist that things are fine.

"Why don't you be more appreciative of the fact our movement sometimes treats you like a human being? It's not like it's ALWAYS treating you like dirt or oppressing you, sometimes it's in our interests to treat you better than that because doing so gets us something we want, so see? We can agree on things and be decent to eachother! And sometimes we're feeling benevolent instead of masochistic, but it's not like it's, you know, all the time that this movement is awful to you, so Why do you keep insisting the feminist movements relationship with men is that it oppresses them? You must just not understand feminism. I mean, we've got a black president and everything. I just don't get what these people want from us. Why can't they just admit we're not a bigoted organization. It's them though, not us. I'm sure of that. All those instances of discrimination, those are akin to isolated incidents or something. If you aren't comfortable talking about your experience here, that's your fault. You just don't get feminism. It's not that we don't get your experience of it and refuse to understand that we are privileged in it, that's not possible, because some men tell us they don't agree with you... oh well yeh, but... Yeh, but your women supporters have internalized knees, so that's different."

Until you recognize that feminisms rhetoric, frame of reference, focus, history, terminology, etc, is all steeped in shit that causes the movement to oppress men, you're a part of the problem.

I'd really like to know why you call yourself a feminist. Seriously. What about identifying with them appeals to you. What have they done to make you identify with them.

I rather suspect this is something that those rabidly hateful elements of your movement need to apply to themselves too. The only difference is that MRMs aren't in key positions of power. Can you ignore the misogyny expressed by some? Can you actually call feminism hateful and, on good conscience, still ignore the MRM components that make your movement one hellbent on misogyny? Seriously, Ostro?

And what has feminism done for me? Gender pay gap elimination, does it ring a bell? Help in civil rights movement, promote awareness of gender discrimination, they have given many who are marginalized a voice, it helped pass Title IX (educational opportunities), it has fought against legal discrimination, they have helped in the struggle to achieve marriage equality for LGBT+ men and women, they forced the US to realize why birth control is important, they have made the workplace a bit more equal for everyone, earned women's right to vote... should I continue?

[Italios]

Just because the "leaders" of feminism are radical, and yes, raving lunatics, does not mean every feminist is a raving lunatic. Ask a more mellow feminist and they might not agree with their opinions and ideas on opressing the other gender.

I agree that's probably the case.

So, how precisely did the "leaders" of feminism become as influential as they are, yet more mellow feminists at least appear to be less so?

What's sad is, the worse part of the group seems to be getting all the recognition, simply because they're the more extreme. We shouldn't let them hog it; then everyone will think that every feminist behave that way, which is not the case. Technically, it's not even feminism: feminism is wanting gender equality, radical feminism, technically speaking, is a whole different ball game. If we ignore radical feminists and their absurd ideas, then they may burn themselves out.

[Kelinfort]

I oppose them and I will do everything in my power to push them from this movement into the dustbin of history.

You cannot, and want you know why?
You was NOT EVEN AWARE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF RADICAL FEMINISM BEFORE I JOINED THIS SITE.
And you're still trying to silence me, not to oppose me with logical arguments

Oh yes I knew what a rad fem was before you came here. I've read Dworkin and Cathy Brennan.

Your condescension is palpable.

[Valystria]

I oppose them and I will do everything in my power to push them from this movement into the dustbin of history.

You cannot, and want you know why?
You was NOT EVEN AWARE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF RADICAL FEMINISM BEFORE I JOINED THIS SITE.
And you're still trying to silence me, not to oppose me with logical arguments

Why do you complain about people not opposing you with logical arguments when you refuse to reply to posts you can't give a logical answer to?
I don't get why you post in this thread if it's to ignore posts that your belief system can't stand up to the scrutiny of.


I continue to wait for a response. Here it is yet again.
viewtopic.php?p=26226528#p26226528

You cannot, and want you know why?
You was NOT EVEN AWARE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF RADICAL FEMINISM BEFORE I JOINED THIS SITE.
And you're still trying to silence me, not to oppose me with logical arguments

We all learned logic was pointless with you a long time ago.

You really should answer Gallo.

I want answers too.

[Dalcaria]

You cannot, and want you know why?
You was NOT EVEN AWARE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF RADICAL FEMINISM BEFORE I JOINED THIS SITE.
And you're still trying to silence me, not to oppose me with logical arguments

That's because you've shown yourself immune to logic.

I'll just put this back here again, since it's still unanswered.

She also hasn't addressed the issues I brought up with "Yes means yes". Again, what if someone says yes because they'd feel bad saying no, or staying silent? "Yes means yes" doesn't guarantee that both parties truly wish to continue with sex. The ONLY thing that does that is having healthy, open communication in the relationship.

[Aelex]

This will never be acknowledged because it's a lie. The feminist movement is NOT oppressive to men. The feminist movement seeks to promote equality as it always has.

To be fair, and I say that as someone who call himself egalitarian because he mostly don't give a fuck, this is false; and denying it is just turning a blind eye toward reality.

Feminism was initially a good concept, but like any political-religion which is allowed too much power without being centralized enough to manage correctly it's own extremists, it turned into a pseudo-heresy of itself, something which is far from what it was originally and what it aimed to.

[Italios]

Until you recognize that feminism, as a movement, has a history of oppressing men and that its' relationship on the whole has been oppressive to them, you are a part of the problem because you're erasing male victimization.

It's, again, like arguing that because not all cops are racist that things are fine.



Until you recognize that feminisms rhetoric, frame of reference, focus, history, terminology, etc, is all steeped in shit that causes the movement to oppress men, you're a part of the problem.

I'd really like to know why you call yourself a feminist. Seriously. What about identifying with them appeals to you. What have they done to make you identify with them.

I rather suspect this is something that those rabidly hateful elements of your movement need to apply to themselves too. The only difference is that MRMs aren't in key positions of power. Can you ignore the misogyny expressed by some? Can you actually call feminism hateful and, on good conscience, still ignore the MRM components that make your movement one hellbent on misogyny? Seriously, Ostro?

And what has feminism done for me? Gender pay gap elimination, does it ring a bell? Help in civil rights movement, promote awareness of gender discrimination, they have given many who are marginalized a voice, it helped pass Title IX (educational opportunities), it has fought against legal discrimination, they have helped in the struggle to achieve marriage equality for LGBT+ men and women, they forced the US to realize why birth control is important, they have made the workplace a bit more equal for everyone, earned women's right to vote... should I continue?

It's completely unfair to ignore the positive impacts feminism has had on the lives of some women and concentrate on the negative parts.

[Napkiraly]

Julie Bindel is definitely transphobic. I don't need to bring out the quotes that DI has already provided. She also tries using the example of Iran to justify why gender reassignment surgery should be criticized. She's a transphobe and you a) being a TERF makes you a transphobe b) you basically saying that transwomen cannot be "real" women because they weren't born with the right bits (biological determinism ftw) c) support Bindel are all functions that equate to you being a transphobe.

Saying Julie Bindel isn't transphobic is like saying Donald Trump isn't anti-immigrant.

I mean lets also break this down.

TERF views on transwomen: Can't be real women because they weren't born that way
Right wing view on transwomen: Can't be real women because they weren't born that way

And TERF's wonder why we compare them to the likes of the GOP. Not to mention that since most TERF's are also SERF's they happen to become elitist hypocrites who decry women being prevented from having their agency but then deny that same agency to sex workers. And denying agency to women is found most commonly on...the right wing!

[Redsection]

Give chessmistress a break guys,even though I hate everything her ideas stand for i cannot watch this much longer,she doesen't have to answer every question,Not because she is a woman but because she is a human,We are all guilty of ignoring posts.