Ignored? It seems to me they've adopted it without a fuss and now breathlessly profess it any chance they get, if only to avoid getting dragged before the human rights tribunal for "transphobia".
This is why your best argument against the intersectional crowd is a feeble attempt to paint them as the icky patriarchy and definitely-not-feminists, and not a refutation of their argument. This is why I called the patriarchy a crutch. Why argue when you can just invoke Satan?
-
-
lol that's not what I've argued. Clearly you didn't read what I sent you.
-
You've stated more than once in this thread that the intersectional/trans feminist crowd is antifeminist. How am I misconstruing your position.
-
What I mean is this is not the basis of my arguments against gender identity ideology and legislation. This statement is true BASED on my arguments against gender identity/legislation, which is outlined in the articles I share with you.
-
Your arguments against gender identity legislation can be broadly summarised as "this hurts women". The intersectional argument can conversely be summarised as "this creates more equality". These are both feminist arguments, the latter arguably more so (see dictionary definition)
-
They can be summarized as "gender identity legislation and ideology trump women's sex-based rights, are regressive, ignore material reality, and are incoherent."
-
What sex-based rights should be exclusive to women and how is that not at odds with the notion of equality?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.