I'll do my best, but a) tired, and b) particularly tired of the rudeness ("even the most unsophisticated of minds") and the unconscious irony ("details matter").
Yup, but at the risk of you wilfully missing the point of a simple phrase again that even the most unsophisticated minds seem to understand is details matter.
Details do matter. With such "sophistication of mind" (the stuff of a pretentious teen's personal statement!), I genuinely wish you'd share some yourself to counter mine. Some of your points are thought-provoking, but so many just (intentionally? unintentionally? it's hard to tell) miss, well... the (GC) point.
The women's right to vote however you wish to bastardise to preventing a sub category of women being recognised isn't going to fly in rational circles.
Not "flying in rational circles"? (Images of a pompous old gent sipping port while expounding at length from a leather armchair coming to mind now). Hm. Tbh, I wouldn't like to speak for such a massive demographic (doesn't feel right to claim such sophistication of mind as that).
And in case you missed the obvious other difference, the right to vote actually has consequences on women broadly. Excluding trans women? Not so much.
See point 7 of my post and the rest of the thread. Or quote point 7 and the points given elsewhere, and break them down. As you say, details matter. Whereas "not so much"? Well, not so much of a counter-argument.
The past campaign was essentially the right to vote. That you wish to twist this into recognition of a distinct demographic thru some mental gymnastics is on you.
It's hard to make a counter-argument if you don't face up to the argument.
I define it as it is: the right to vote v the right to limit what a woman is.
I'm confused by this. Who's "limiting what a woman is" here? I thought you meant trans ideology at first, then realised you probably mean GC feminists, I guess in our damning embrace of the significant proportion of the world's population who haven't a clue what you mean by "cis" and define women the way of millennia. (Like, you know, the billions populating global history).
On numbers alone, we win outright.
This does interest me, actually. Has that ever occurred to you, Gretel? How culturally colonialist and insistently revisionist this teeny westernised redefinition of recent decades is? How arrogant is it, to impose it on - just to choose one example of billions - the 20+ million oppressed by the Taliban who likely define themselves as we do? (Or do they not? Details would be genuinely interesting on this matter).
Meaningful impact as in the actual effects on everyday women's lives. As in women be sexually harassed at work was significantly more commonplace than them ever being harassed by a trans woman. Metoo didn't have a meaningful impact on everyday women's lives?... to say the workplace is the same pre metoo just isn't true...
I'm confused. Who said Me Too "didn't have a meaningful impact" or "the workplace is the same"? Could you clarify? (While you're at it, you could also comment on what I said: "I honestly find it hard to see how Me Too had more concrete impact than"). Again (I'm sorry, I can't resist it!)... details matter.
As opposed to GC impact on women's lives broadly? Given the rarity of trans peoples presence, that would be a stretch.
Their rarity is key, I agree: given this, their proportionate impact is astonishing, and a strong argument in our favour (eg. sport).
However, my focus was actually on our redefinition. I'd not realised how well the voting analogy works here, too, actually. "Given the rarity of a woman's political views diverging dramatically from those of her husband, it would be a stretch to think she was disadvantaged by not having the vote," they said.
On the very rare occasion one should sight a human unicorn being compelled to treat them as an equal isn't the grand existential upset you think it is.
I'm really taken with this phrase - a most excellent sentence and image. I'm thinking CS Lewis illustrated by Maurice Sendak. A backdrop of dark forest, the unicorn glowing in the foreground. Existential turmoil represented by planetary firescape glimpsed roiling through the trees. I may Chat GPT it!
So to suggest they might be more misogynistic than others is nonsense
Where did I suggest this? Which "others"? Dammit, it's just so apt, I'm going there again... Details matter.
Australia & Canada are global leaders regarding egalitarianism so to suggest they might be more misogynistic than others is nonsense.
More likely Gender critical ideology has a blind spot when it comes to accepting /understanding how typical associations drive word categorisations. They are so obsessed with gender stereotypes coopting behaviour they can't rationalise any other influences.
A lot to deal with here, so I'm just going to end on another children's fiction light note. "Gender stereotypes coopting behaviour" sounds like the plot of a dodgy dystopian teen novel - Invasion of the Shoddy Matchers? (Ahem. Sorry. Guess I got a bit carried away in my pathetically confused understanding of associations and word categorisations...)