”step 1: GC posters get mentioned for the numerous times the revolting racist misogynist human that is LF has been quoted, lauded and agreed with in GC threads”
”step 2: you can’t say GC! (outrage, bluster, blah blah blah, even though it’s used god knows how many times daily on threads you’re on in the other board without anyone batting a GC eyelid)”
in reference to step 1 - Please point to posts “lauding” Fox and posts that agree with his actions in rating a woman’s sexual attractiveness? Or is it possible that you have also ridiculously done the same thing that Jing did in dishonestly misrepresenting posts on FWR?
Please produce the evidence to support your claim and then let us evaluate whether those posters are feminists or simply hold the belief that someone cannot change sex.
In reference to Step 2, your hyperbolic statement shows that you are very happy to conflate groups with different motivations to use the term to vilify feminists. Which is what jing did and why I posted to explain the terminology use and history. So, well done in giving yet another example of how some people do this to vilify feminists who don’t agree with you.
And yes, some posters DO use the term ‘gender critical’ for themselves and usually they are people who are critical of gender stereotyping defining what a woman or a man, or a girl or a boy, is. So they are using the first part of the term correctly at least. Some posters claim it for themselves yet uphold gender stereotypes even on FWR. Thereby make the term meaningless.
And gosh … ‘a GC eyelid’. Dehumanising language such as this does make it easier to vilify a group who disagrees with you, doesn’t it?
Your post pretty much encapsulates the extreme trans activist tactics I touched on. And by extreme trans activists, I mean those who simply demand that their demands are prioritised over the needs of women and children. We know many trans people are not demanding this. In fact, we know of and are constantly told of many trans people who respect those needs and seek solutions that work for all.
However, there still are also many extreme trans activists too.
The tactic is to Falsely force team feminists with people who don’t have feminist motivations and may even oppose the majority of feminist aims by dishonestly expanding a term used to describe feminists. This then makes the term ‘gender critical feminist’ meaningless and a source of abuse via that false force teaming or false alignment on issues.
To be clear, feminists are campaigning to prioritise the sex based rights that address the needs of women and girls when it is necessary. Such as for safety and to address the still prevalent negative sexist discrimination experienced by women and girls as two examples of when it is necessary. Feminists also are campaigning to protect children and those children’s needs. Do you titerama and jing disagree with those principles?
To repeat from my other posts, the motivations of other groups forced under the umbrella term of ‘gender critical feminism’ by extreme trans activists, may look the same on a macro level but are usually different. And sometimes significantly different.
To make the ‘alignment’ more believable to those lacking in the ability to critically think though the motivations of each group, extreme trans activists remove the term feminist. They then falsely apply the umbrella term to give the impression of alignment. It is a dishonest tactic.
Then feminists can be vilified and demonised along with extremist groups who want extreme measures. That is the aim of those doing it and those using the term as it has been used by jing and titerama and others.
The dehumanisation aspect then adds to the ease of that vilification. And it is dehumanising to say ‘a GC eyelid’.
Fuck that. Not one poster could post a similarly dehumanising phrase such as ‘a trans eyelid’ and have it survive being reported. Because the guidelines rightfully don’t allow trans people to be dehumanised in that way. Plus regular posters don’t have the habit of dehumanising trans people.
We don’t use terms like ‘the transes’, for good reason. It is deplorable. We would be rightfully deleted if we posted ‘a trans eyelid’ in the way titerama has used it.
And to further clarify, there is no assumption that jing and titerama are extreme trans activists. They may not be. Some of the other people who use such terminology as them, simply have no capability to critically analyse and understand what feminists are campaigning for.