Aggressive Feminism Boards

[PerverseConverse]

I've been on this board for a while now and long enough to understand the issues and why women are so vocal about them and angry that our rights are threatened.
I'm frustrated reading on other threads, or on social media that this board is aggressive, shoots down discussion, and calls people names if their views don't match the majority. I can't say that I've seen that myself. All I see is intelligent discussion and persuasive arguments. Any goadiness is appropriately dealt with from what I've read as are any views that don't match reality. Maybe that's what upsets people: that their delusions are challenged with indisputable reality.
I'm still new to feminism and learning daily but I see women fighting for other women and prepared to get flak for that. I see some women who have been well and truly brainwashed by the trans movement and by men and the patriarchy in general. And that's the other criticism: that we are too focused on the trans issue. That makes me angry. The trans issue is the major one affecting women and girls at the moment and it's right that we are focused on it.
These complaints are coming from women who are calling themselves feminists and it baffles me completely that feminists can't understand the biggest threat to women and girls.
Now, I'm aware these so called feminists may well be trolls but I don't think they all are. How can some feminists be so opposed to other feminists passionately protecting their rights? Rights that are for ALL women.

Then I unreservedly apologise for the confusion.

Ok, thanks. No worries.

What about what people on this thread are telling you? Being hounded off by being rounded on and called names/told their opinions mean shit as they're not the right ones, or repeatedly called a man or a troll by multiple posters so they feel they can't post anymore?

Hounded off?? FFS I can't take this faux innocence anymore. I'm hungover. I'm in pain. I'm saying it straight. Dear God woman, you sure can give it but you can't take it !!
I'm called patronising and gaslighting
You call anyone who doesn't agree TWAW transphobic.

That's a really nasty thing to say, really cruel, accusatory and nasty.
Just fuckin own it!

So to anyone saying self ID is fine, I ask you do you thinkbmaking all these services and spaces unisex will be safe?

Who is saying self ID is fine?

Show me proof of where anyone here has said that self ID is fine?

Exactly. It's the fact that some have a problem with all trans.

As a pp said, no one has "a problem with all trans", they have a problem with the idea that a man can in any way be a woman.

Justbecauseyouareunique
I agree with you about the 50-1 ratio. It gives the impression of opinions being shut down. Much of the rest of the internet is 50-1 the other way though.
I was going to link from here to the non aggressive definition of a woman thread as that's what a lot of people here are talking about.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3387131-Non-profit-Aggressive-discussion-what-is-a-woman

Who is saying self ID is fine? Show me proof of where anyone here has said that self ID is fine?

I'd like to know too, as I haven't seen anyone say that either.

There’s nothing nuanced about this teddy. where’s the nuance?

The nuance is in the definition of man and woman.

You will only accept born as. Some of us define it differently.

Others who are genetically male or female will also lie outside of your definition.

This is the nuance.

If you don’t like the way feminism is done here, don’t come here. Facebook etc have plenty of liberal feminism spaces. Just stop arguing for fucks sake. Even this post is goady, and I agree with it. We have shit to do. Let’s get on with it.*

Wow. Ffs.

Earlywalker, the billboard definition does not use the word ‘denote’, so this argument is irrelevant.

waterlego

I think you may be confused. The definition of a woman is adult human female. The definition of a female includes the word denote.

Elephantinacravat - for someone that dismissed my point of it being superficial appearance so bluntly, you’ve put a lot of ‘surelys’ and ‘it must’ if the definition is so important to the GC movement, so much so that a billboard was placed giving it - i’d have thought you’d all have a pretty clear idea of the meaning. However only a few of you have even engaged with my points, let alone defend them with your definitive answer.

OK, I can take out the surelys and musts of you want.

'Denotes to be' cannot rest on outward appearances because if it did, it would depend on the person looking. If two people walk past a transwoman on the street and one thinks 'oh they look like they are of the sex that produces ova' and the other thinks 'they look like they are of the sex that produces sperm' is that transwoman both male and female at the same time then? No, of course not. So 'Denotes to be' wouldn't work as a dictionary definition in that context because it would be entirely subjective.

I would assume the question about self id was about the logical conclusion to changing the definition of women. Not necessarily an accusation you personally are campaigning for it.

Earlywalker, the billboard definition does not use the word ‘denote’, so this argument is irrelevant.

It's the definition of female that uses the word denote.

But as for what ‘denotes’ the sex class of women; the ability to produce ova, that would be things like: XX chromosomes, vagina, uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, cervix. One would expect to find some or all of these features in a female human body. A body that has none of these features can not be considered a female body.

Apart from bodies which once had any of those features.

I’ve noticed lately, probably as a result of reading this board, how taken aback people are when women are assertive. I had it just yesterday when I complained about a pub getting my food order wrong twice. The woman serving was agog at the fact that I didn’t take any shit, and that I wasn’t all nice about it. I wasn’t aggressive, but I wasn’t taking any responsibility for other people’s fuck ups. Ironically, she was the one who was rude and aggressive.

Men are assertive, women are aggressive, and once you see it you can’t unsee.

I also don’t think anyone here wants the definition of a woman changed, but don’t let me speak for everyone. We’re fighting for the same thing at the end of the day - women’s right and how to protect them. Which is why when we’re told everything we have been (I’m not repeating it again, I’ll start to bore people!) it make us WANT to come here and have our voice heard and our opinions listened to.

I would assume the question about self id was about the logical conclusion to changing the definition of women.

I think that self ID calls for changing of the definition of both woman and man.

If self ID were one sided then you have a point, but it isn't.

I could equally self ID as a man. In fact, when I come across a situation where it will benefit me I fully intend to self ID as a man, just to prove a point.

This is the ridiculousness of this law as I see it. Sex, or gender, or whatever they call it, will make no sense in any context going forward. But my annoyance is aimed at the law makers, not at men or anyone who is trans gender.

It’s not assertiveness to tell me I’m not the right sort of feminist or I’m speaking on behalf of men, or I’m a handmaiden etc etc. I’m sorry but it’s not.

Why are definitions so important? As I said earlier, the definition of marriage was A man and A woman, I can envisage homophobic people constantly throwing that in the face of those fighting for gay rights too. So those fighting for the definition of a woman, what are your thoughts on that?

The definition of marriage is an entirely social construct. Therefore it can be changed.

The definition of male and female is pretty irrefutable. We know that when people of the female sex class come together with people of the male sex class, babies are made. We know this because thousands of years of this happening has got us to us having this discussion on the Internet.

What's more, people of one particular sex class (male) have oppressed people of the other sex class (female), purely based on the fact that the latter were of this sex class. So people of the female sex class carved out their own rights to try and reduce the harm that was coming to them as a result of being of that sex class. If we start to include people of the male sex class into that then it's possible that those female sex rights will be eroded.

Do not think there needs to be definitions of 'disabled' to discuss disability rights, or 'gay' to discuss gay rights?

Ffs people!! We are allowed to feel angry and aggressive. At this very moment male paedophiles and sexual predators are rubbing their hands with glee. Green light > put on a frock, get in those ladies loos and changing rooms!! Piece of cake. Of course we're feeling angry and aggressive!!! Male cheats in sports. Easy, a year or two of meds, win every women's competition!!! Of course we're feeling angry and aggressive!!

www-collinsdictionary-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/assertive?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.collinsdictionary.com%2Fdictionary%2Fenglish%2Fassertive

Definition of assertive.

Where does it include name calling, misgendering or ridiculing in that definition?

Why are definitions so important? As I said earlier, the definition of marriage was A man and A woman, I can envisage homophobic people constantly throwing that in the face of those fighting for gay rights too. So those fighting for the definition of a woman, what are your thoughts on that?*

Marriage is a social, legal and religious construct. It varies from historical period to historical period and from culture to culture. It is a cultural artefact, so of course definitions will change.

Sexual dimorphism is material reality. It is implicit in our mammalian biology. The words that mean adult, human female might vary, but not our biology.

They are different kinds of definitions.

TeddyIsaHe

Omfg. No one is saying we agree with self-ID! This is not about that, it’s about what is currently happening on this thread - the attempt to shut down anything that doesn’t follow the FWR line. That doesn’t mean we all want men to be able to stick some lippy on and pop over to the nearest women’s refuge and get access.

Am baffled. Posters are engaging, asking questions, interested in you clarifying your points. Engaging with you.
Its a huge leap to describe that being "shut down" in fact it is over dramatic bullshit to describe that as being shut down .

teddy if you’re anti self ID and agree with the definition of woman can I ask; when people were calling you a handmaiden or whatever, what was it in response to?