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.

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.

Thank you!

As Lang said, produce a third gamete/sex class or abandon this lame argument.

Verbeena, weird thing to think about but this is what I've been doing. Imagine I'm a paedophile or sexual predator. Where would I go and how? Stick on a frock and wig, go to a cinema. Ladies toilets, wait in a cubicle until a female comes in whilst the film is showing (quiet time). Grab female, drag into cubicle, assault then leave cinema still in "disguise". This is obviously going to happen. I'm past the point of discussing who's male or female. Where should I go?

It's quite simple: a woman whose reproductive system isn't working quite right (I have PCOS, for example) doesn't cease to be a woman, she's just a woman whose reproductive system isn't working quite right.

A member of the sex which produces small motile gametes is a man, and doesn't cease to be a man simply because he puts a dress on (particularly if he's demonstrated that his reproductive system is working just fine, thank you very much, by such give-aways as fathering children prior to donning a dress).

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

None, as far as I am concerned.

But many according to the PP who listed the necessary organs needed to be a woman, with the qualifying " or once had them".
It's them you need to convince. Not me.

Earlywalker, going back to your discussion of dictionary definitions at 11:03, I'm pretty sure that 'denoting' here is referring to the use of 'female' as an adjective (it can be both adjective and noun, as you'll be aware).

'Female judges are unfortunately very rare' is an example of 'female' used as an adjective - descriptive of the noun 'judges'. So the word 'female' here is denoting - i.e. indicating - judges who are of the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, as opposed to judges of the male sex.

'Appearing to be' or 'having the appearance of', as you go on to say in your own interpretation, doesn't play any part in the definition of either 'female' or 'denote'.

Your sister is (doesn't just 'appear to be') still of the sex that can bear offspring and produce eggs, even though she as an individual member of that sex class cannot (and I doubt that anyone would 'throw that in her face' as you suggest). She is female. It is the broader sex class that is being defined in the dictionary.

BrownPaperTeddy

I would ask that you take a moment just in case you may be going down the route of using women who have had radical hysterctomies (for medical neccesity) and / or are infertile to make a really poor argument.

Its been heard before a number of times.
Its not logical.

It demonstrates a complete lack of empathy for women who have experienced infertility and/ or surgical menopause, severe endometriosis, gyny cancers etc.

There are many women who this relates to.
Some will be reading.

I am posting.

YY Harmonic. Thank you.

Oh it’s always the same on boards where lots of women frequent or even in real life. Argue robustly or disagree profusely and it’s always ‘you’re agGRESSive’. Give any opinion that isn’t peppered with ‘teeheehee’ and ‘boys are silllllyyyy’ and you’re an aggressive bitch.

I’ve had it so often that I don’t care any more.

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.

Here we are. You would expect to find some or all of these features. Some women, born female, won't have some of these features.

ThisIs how utterly fucking patronising and not what any of us are saying at all.

But Teddy, that poster didn't say that a person needed all of those features or even most? So not sure what your argument is.

Oh for goodness sake.

I am arguing against it.

It was another poster who said it.

I DO NOT AGREE.

Why won't you just read the thread properly without just reading the last couple of posts and then jumping on board?

Teddy is taking one person's statement and saying it's not true because of the vanishingly small number of female people who do not either have XX chromosomes or anything of a female reproductive system.

It's a poor argument and it's irrelevant to the clear dictionary definition of woman which so many appear to have trouble with.

But Teddy, that poster didn't say that a person needed all of those features or even most?
They said some or all.

Some is more than one.

Some women may only have one of those features.

To me they are still women but not according to that poster.

And "female".

Teddy is taking one person's statement and saying it's not true because of the vanishingly small number of female people who do not either have XX chromosomes or anything of a female reproductive system.

Actually no I'm not.

I'm saying that some women may only have one of those features - mainly XX chromosomes.

But how many is "some" as stipulated by that poster? 1,2,3?

To me they are still women but not according to that poster.

THAT WASN'T WHAT SHE SAID. Please stop misrepresenting other posters.

THIRD GAMETE, PLEASE.

Why are you fixated on one person's statement Teddy? It's not the dictionary definition of woman.

She said 'a body which has none of these features cannot be considered a female body'. That is a fact isn't it?

Oh it’s always the same on boards where lots of women frequent or even in real life. Argue robustly or disagree profusely and it’s always ‘you’re agGRESSive’. Give any opinion that isn’t peppered with ‘teeheehee’ and ‘boys are silllllyyyy’ and you’re an aggressive bitch

Where has ANYBODY said that?!

ThisIs how utterly fucking patronising and not what any of us are saying at all

Exactly.

weird thing to think about but this is what I've been doing. Imagine I'm a paedophile or sexual predator. Where would I go and how? Stick on a frock and wig, go to a cinema. Ladies toilets, wait in a cubicle until a female comes in whilst the film is showing (quiet time). Grab female, drag into cubicle, assault then leave cinema still in "disguise". This is obviously going to happen. I'm past the point of discussing who's male or female. Where should I go?

Yet again, where has ANYBODY said that they can't see any problems with self ID? People are repeatedly saying that of course there's concerns in regards to self ID, but for some it isn't about self ID, they have a problem with all transwomen!
THAT is the problem. Not the self ID.

Verbeena it’s like shouting into a black hole. No matter how many times we try and put our point across it’s the same tripe repeated ad inifitum. I think it’s because people very rarely come on here to put across other views and so there’s just stock responses to whatever is being said, without actually reading what has been written.

THAT WASN'T WHAT SHE SAID. Please stop misrepresenting other posters.

What did she say then if I am misrepresenting her?

I've directly quoted where she says you would expect a female to have some or all of the features and I've said her next post adds the qualification that they once had them. So I am deliberately not misrepresenting them by trying to suggest that they meant women that had a hysterectomy for example.

So how am I misrepresenting?

Maybe misunderstanding if you can explain a different meaning to what they said, but not misrepresenting.

but for some it isn't about self ID, they have a problem with all transwomen!

What is the material difference between an MTF trans person and a man self IDing as a woman?

Why is it wrong not to accept that any male is a woman?