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.

VerbeenaBeeks We all understand that you don't like the responses to your posts and many of us sympathise. I don't know what you want me to do about it. You can ask all the posters on this board to tone it down, some may listen some may not

Was merely saying to those who refuse to accept that it happens, and then asking for evidence, that yes, actually, it does.

A transwoman will full surgery that possess a vagina, would appear to be of the childbearing sex.

A transwoman cannot possess a vagina. They can, at best, possess a hole which has been specifically shaped to resemble a vagina, and which needs dilating regularly in order not to close up. Any doctor who examined a transwoman who had had that surgery would know that they are not of the childbearing sex.

The definition of a female in summary says ‘someone who is or denotes to be of the sex class that can produce children.

The definition in the OED is "of or denoting the sex".

That's the wording. You've totally misunderstood what it means. Denote here means indicating a biological female, not "showing signs of".

For changing your name? That’s your choice and up to you. There’s a difference between having a go at an individual for doing that and exploring the context in which it happens. I think some people forget that (bit like the endless sahm/woh threads, where there’s a lot to get angry about the context the choices are made in but each individual makes a valid choice that’s right for them.)

teddy women are defined as a class - the attributes of the individual may not meet all the identifiers of that class, but they are members of that class none the less. An infertile woman, a woman who has lost her reproductive organs to cancer, or a woman with a gene mutation like mrkh2 which causes parts of the reproductive system to be underdeveloped or absent - they are all women.

The class definition is what important. It excludes men. All men.

BrownPaperTeddy What, you just turn up and don't have to have an appointment? Perhaps they could issue appointments? Or we could all just retain sex segregation as most of us on this board wish??

I don't really think this means that women pose anything like the threat to men that men pose to women. And I'm losing how this is relevant, I'm afraid, to what this thread is about.

So if you only have 1 of these? What does that make you?

Faux scientific nonsense. You may not have all the elements of your body fully functioning but you are either of the sex that produces gametes or of the sex that fertilises them. One or the other. The gaslighting that 'sex is a spectrum' is created for one reason: to enable men to take down women's boundaries. Not playing that game.

Now heading back to read Mr Bancroft's excellent treatise on 'Mr Right', I'm at the bit about condescension and ridiculing and discrediting women's perspectives to escape having to deal with them and it's always a fascinating read.

You said you didn't think there was a third sex just for infertile people, right?

And I don't think that there is.

This was another poster stating that a woman is born with certain characteristics - XX chromosomes, vagina, uterus etc.

And then followed up with or once had them.

So I'm asking using her lust of defining characteristics how does she define someone with XX chromosomes but without the other features?

This isn't my definition.

This isn't my definition.

But these questions are sophistry. Do you really not know what "sex" means ?

The gaslighting that 'sex is a spectrum' is created for one reason: to enable men to take down women's boundaries. Not playing that game.

THIS

Definition of indicating - point out; show. suggest as a desirable or necessary course of action.

A transwoman will full surgery that possess a vagina, would appear to be of the childbearing sex.

I mean, sure, if you don't notice the facial structure, or the shoulders, or the hands, or the waist to hip ratio, or differently shaped bum, or the adams apple, or anything else at all other than "huh, I don't think I can see a penis", then OK. In the event that you're legally blind, and can't hear the person speaking, and yet somehow can perceive that there's no longer a penis present, then you'd totally assume that they were of the sex that could potentially bear children.

And that's enough for me for this particular thread. Have fun, everyone!

Aggressive feminism boards I'm a woman and I feel angry. Verbeena where should I go?

Aggressive feminism boards I'm a woman and I feel angry. Verbeena where should I go?

Erm,here? As I'm not saying anyone should leave, unlike others.
Be angry all you (collective you) like, but anyone being angry isn't a reason to belittle others.

“Appears to be” does mean the same as “is”

This is juvenile philosophical filibustering. And you’ve added another thing to the list of things women are angry about.

BrownPaperTeddy What, you just turn up and don't have to have an appointment?

I'm talking about for in patients. So if you are in for a GI bleed for example and need scoping you have to wait until the time appointed to your sex - either am or pm depending on the day.

Someone I know nearly bled to death because their turn wasn't until the afternoon.

Now we know in future we will use self ID to circumvent this stupid rule.

Therefore if I self ID as a man can I be screened?

That actually is a valid question - with a family history they should scan you anyway (assuming nothing sex linked.)

we have had discussions on this - obscuring the language around sex fails patients. There was the cruk ‘people with a cervix’ thread, for example, and the conclusion there was that removing the word woman fails because it complicates things and excludes women with poor understanding and those where English isn’t the first language.

There was also case in the USA where a transman taking testosterone was treated for kidney failure using Male values for eGFR (a measure of filtering ability which has different reference ranges for the sexes.) they were in a critical condition due to this.

So there are a lot of questions to ask about this in a treatment context. My view is that medics need full accurate information to treat.

Oh, just show me the third gamete or give it up.

Definition of indicating - point out; show. suggest as a desirable or necessary course of action.

Which one of those meanings do you think I mean? Look up the definition of "denote". It mentions "indicate" in it.

I somehow doubt women will be able to use self id to their advantage.

When the original GRA was drafted, there were two big exceptions: primogeniture and inheritance. So a free for all for men to do and access what they want but women? No you can’t inherit that title. Or the money.

I’m angry about that too

Oh, just show me the third gamete or give it up.

The "infertile women aren't women" discussion has taken quite a novel turn! Some quite spectacular misunderstandings.

But these questions are sophistry. Do you really not know what "sex" means ?

I'm not sure why you think my argument is false?

I'm not arguing.

I'm saying that the definition provided by another poster doesn't include everyone that we would all agree is a woman.

This is the difficulty. Trying to find the perfect definition is actually quite difficult. Too wide and yes you risk including men out simply to take advantage. Too narrow and you exclude some women.

You don’t exclude any women because the definition is ...’of the class that...’

Not ‘must tick every box at all times.’

Class vs individual.

Too narrow and you exclude some women.

Which women are excluded from 'of the sex which produces ova'?

That actually is a valid question - with a family history they should scan you anyway (assuming nothing sex linked.)

In our case no, not sex linked.

However, in general, according to NGS facts - men are at a greater risk than women and so screening is offered to men.

I guess similar to breast screening. Men can get breast cancer but women are at a much higher risk and therefore men aren't screened.

I am a woman but have a higher risk due to family history. Can't be screened though because I'm not male. My solution then is to self ID as a man for the purpose of this screening. Then I shall revert back to female.

I'm saying that the definition provided by another poster doesn't include everyone that we would all agree is a woman.

It is sophistry because it's based on a misunderstanding of the definition of "woman". And "sex" and "can". Can has two meanings, one that you are able to do something, and one that you have the potential to do something. The "can" is referring to the female sex class. Not any individual woman.

Poor.