Again, you're not explaining how these believes are non/antifeminist, you're just listing things you don't like about their beliefs. The idea of women not being subservient to the man of the house is also ahistorical but apparently it's a staple of feminism.
Arguing for biological sex differences while denying psychological sex differences is not significantly less kooky than denying biological sex differences. Again you're just assuming a priori that your strain of feminism is right.
-
-
You're moving the goalposts. I'm just explaining to you what the feminist analysis of gender is. You are free to disagree if you like.
-
I'm not moving the goalposts at all. I'm addressing your argument directly. You're trying to argue that intersectional feminism is antifeminist for acknowledging an aspect of reality that runs counter to your ideology, to whit, psychological sex differences.
-
I'm arguing that proponents of gender identity ideology are not making feminist (or coherent) arguments.
-
And I'm pointing out that coherence or factuality has never been a requirement of feminism. You can dislike or disagree with the intersectionals all you want, so far you've given no argument other than naked assertion that they aren't feminists.
-
Sigh. I've provided lots of arguments. You just declined to read the articles I sent to you. You don't like feminism, I get it.
-
I skimmed them, encountered nothing I haven't seen before and responded to your overall points accordingly. If there's any specific argument you think I'm overlooking, name it, if not, stop deflecting to those articles.
-
You are now asking me to justify the existence of feminism, not to defend my position on gender identity. This is an entirely separate argument than the one you began with. I'm on my way out, and honestly not interested, atm, in defending the existence of feminism on twitter
-
Nothing of the sort. I'm asking you to explain your endlessly repeated assertion that intersectional feminism is antifeminist. The fact that this is such a nettling question for you to answer should be a red flag that maybe you need to rethink this issue.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It's like a catholic and a protestant calling each-other 'satanist' and 'anti-christian'. Disagreeing on specific tenets of christianity doesn't make either sect non-christian.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.