Geez.
So after all that, this is what you did? This is the very definition of stereotypical poster who believes they are morally superior yet when pointed out how close their own beliefs mirror the nasty posters flounces.
And you wondered why posters were reluctant to engage without an proper definition.
The thing is, you have had lots of people now point out that whoever explained second wave feminism to you have you a very fucked up misinterpreted explanation. And I suspect you were headed towards how you believe we are bioessentialists or something.
No.
Sexist (biodeterminist): I am a woman therefore I do the dishes.
Gender ideology: I do the dishes therefore I am a woman.
Feminist: Anyone can do the dishes, man or woman!
Or was it the sports question? Because that is the quickest way to the core of your arguments last night. I and others had asked about sport upthread but I suspect it got lost.
Sport is an excellent entry point. Because the categories in sport have all been set up to protect the competitiveness of the category. That is age, impairment, and sex. And experience too.
No other group has been asked to allow people who don’t fit that category into their competitions. Just women and girls. Women and girls have been asked to accept males with their testosterone puberty benefits to compete.
Some people who fully support males being considered ‘women’ in all aspects, believe that a male person who has shaped their body should access women’s sport as a reward. That by not pushing their body to be the fittest needed for their sport but shaped it for cosmetic appearance and removing testosterone, their decisions to limit their performance should be rewarded while female sportspeople have to train and remain dedicated to achieve similar levels of output.
As the saying goes, if you cannot recognise that a rider on an electric assisted bicycle has advantage despite not winning the Tour de France, you have no understanding of sport or competition.
So, I guess there were too many questions asked that would have exposed the gaping holes in the foundations of thought that underpin your beliefs here. Hence you followed the script of all that have been before. Almost boiler plate replica.
‘I am here in good faith’
’You are all transphobes, lack the wonderful insight I have and you have no in depth / convincing arguments and your words are mean.’
’why are you all piling in on me! This is what I meant! No I ‘am’ good faith! I am!’
After throwing out some clearly wrong statements about what supposedly feminists believe and being shown up for having no well founded argument, just emotional manipulation. Just like all the rest.
‘you are all so hateful, my DMs are open, I cannot have this conversation here where great be holes are exposed. I am leaving you with some more insults (as of enough haven’t been flung already) and you have proved my point’
I am not much of a writer (I am no Nick Cave), but this is the script we see weekly, or at least fortnightly. This thread went as we all expected.
Why?
Because the OP never intended this thread to be a good faith thread. They brought shaming elements in right in the very first post. They came from shaming us all directly from another thread.
It was a dishonesty to say it was ever good faith.