Why do some feminists oppose misogyny but support gender ideology?

[Doodwhatareyou]

I recently ended up in the man hating side of tiktok, which is a place I tend to be in agreement with. I’ve seen several women bravely battle stupid men in the comments who manage to reinforce everything being said.

I’ve seen a pattern though that these women, who seem to be very up on rules of misogyny, and aware of how problematic too many men are, usually have pronouns in their bio, and occasionally will complain about being bullied by terfs.

I’m baffled.

How can they be so up on patriarchal nonsense yet miss the fundamental misogyny in gender ideology. How can they deny the evidence that trans identified men are just as much of a problem for women if not more as they want women’s rights and spaces.

They can make endless videos about how hateful men are because of the way women are treated, and how women have to budge up and make room, yet trans identified men are women, and anyone who says otherwise is a massive bigot. I don’t understand.

@DrBlackbird

What an insulting and patronising post. do you feel that metaphorical pat on the head and feel warmed by basking in the approval of Lexible? Along with having your pov defined by him/her/them. ffs.

Yeah, that was rather hilarious in its patronising misaim 😅Like, newbies should lurk more before they try to tell a more regular poster what they think or what others think of them.

Though the attempt at decredibilising my input by misguidedly weaponising my identity against me was a lot less hilarious. I didn't appreciate that at all, and I sure hope it won't happen again.

Sorry not to feed into whatever strange fantasy you have in your head, but am neither "screeching" nor "gnashing my teeth".

I am laughing at you. As are many here.

WTAF!

Validation for Seethlaw? Seethlaw is a female person posting on a feminism board. Of course, Seethlaw is welcome and validated as a feminist here.

I think it's easier to denigrate the 'GC tribe' than to make a coherent argument that women don't need sex specific rights.

I completely admit that I don't now what an is is not an ought means.

Well said.

For those of us that have experienced gender inequality (for me it was my own family preventing my education because of my sex) many of us relate to feminism in terms of renouncing biological essentialism. Psychological interchangeability being the justification for gender equality makes it the centrepiece of feminism.

For me, I see trans people as a great example of gender interchangeability between the sexes..& its why they are the natural enemy of the patriarchy.

That's not to say natal sex isn't important in facilitating fairness rather its not the big enchilada when it comes to gender equality.

How would you know the difference?

Indeed.

It's also far easier than trying to excuse or even bother commenting on the violently misogynist rhetoric all too often employed against feminist women who say no by the average male transactivist while he demands entry into women's spaces and services, and who claims this demand is his "human right".

I'm guessing the male-inclusive "feminists" think threatening women with violence, death and rape for saying no is a valid form of "feminism" too?

”Be more disagreeable” should be on a T-shirt.

You don't understand what "biological essentialism" is either, Bailey.

Well ...

[You might be interested in this: How to Derive "Ought" From "Is", John R. Searle, The Philosophical Review Vol. 73, No. 1 (Jan., 1964). (See for instance www.jstor.org/stable/2183201 if you have jstor access.) Other philosophers have things to say, too. Have a search about the fact/value distinction if you're interested. (Although it's not really relevant here. Read on ...)]

The attempted definition is certainly circular, and does not mention or imply any moral or ethical proposition. That bit of Hume's Treatise is irrelevant, I'm afraid.

OK, you say, that gender exists is a subjective belief. And, perhaps (is this what you meant?), people say they believe in its existence because it accords with some of their values to do so.

What is this gender of which you speak? Or, if you prefer, what does 'gender' mean?

In asking what you mean by 'gender', I'm not asking an 'ought'-type question, am I? Same goes for 'woman', mutatis mutandis.

No question of the fact/value distinction here. Do you see?

I don't think that what a woman is is in the eye of the beholder; nor do I think gender, in the way you're trying to mean it, exists . But neither of these is relevant to the point at issue. Circular definitions are empty for the reason I explained.

Biological essentialism is the belief that women should be restricted by their biology.

Apparently you wish to remove the legal and linguistic framework that enables women to fight for rights so that they can e.g. control their fertility, so I can only imagine that you are a proponent of biological essentialism, but don't quite understand what it means.

For me, I see trans people as a great example of gender interchangeability between the sexes

Why are you bothering to classify people's personalities at all? Why put people into gender boxes? Why not just accept that humans vary?

Or this. I’d be interested to hear from @Lexibletheflexibleand @Baileyoniceon trans men or women sharing prison cells based on gender not sex

The attempted definition is certainly circular, and does not mention or imply any moral or ethical proposition. That bit of Hume's Treatise is irrelevant, I'm afraid.

Depends on the framework (see 3&4):

AI Overview

Whether “woman” is a circular definition depends entirely on the framework being used to define it. A definition is circular when it uses the term being defined as part of the explanation (e.g., defining a woman simply as "someone who is a woman"). 1]
The concept can be explored across four main perspectives:

1. The "Gender Identity" Perspective
Definition: "A woman is an adult who identifies as a woman."
Logical Status: This is a circular definition. Because it relies on the term being defined to complete the explanation, it essentially forms an infinite logical loop that explains nothing about what the category actually is. 1, 2]

2. The "Biological/Sex" Perspective
Definition: "An adult human female."
Logical Status: This is non-circular, as it defines a woman by referencing distinct biological traits (e.g., chromosomes, gametes) rather than the word itself. However, debates often arise over the definitions of "adult" and "female," and whether this definition excludes individuals with differences in sex development (DSDs) or transgender women. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

3. The "Subjective/Internal Sense" Perspective
Definition: "An adult with an internal sense of being female."
Logical Status: This is non-circular because it uses the word "female" (referring to the sex category or internal identity) to define "woman," separating the definition from the word itself. 1, 2]

4. The Sociological and Historical Perspective
Definition: A fluid set of social roles, behaviors, and cultural expectations.
Logical Status: This perspective avoids circularity by defining the term through measurable cultural, historical, and behavioral attributes rather than a single absolute term. Because these traits change based on time and place, sociology often views "woman" as a complex category that defies a single, universal definition. 1, 2]

OK, you say, that gender exists is a subjective belief. And, perhaps (is this what you meant?), people say they believe in its existence because it accords with some of their values to do so.

I believe gender is a socially constructed category that results from the expression of human personality traits.

What is this gender of which you speak? Or, if you prefer, what does 'gender' mean?

Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours expressions, and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender-diverse people.

In asking what you mean by 'gender', I'm not asking an 'ought'-type question, am I? Same goes for 'woman', mutatis mutandis.
No question of the fact/value distinction here. Do you see?

Categorisation is an 'ought' because its socially constructed.

I believe gender is a socially constructed category that results from the expression of human personality traits.

So you think some personality traits are wrong for women?

Also, why should the state concern itself with classifying people according to their personality traits. This sounds very dystopian.

I'm in favour of trans people being housed separately in prisons given their propensity for being abused. I also don't believe in giving anti trans activists any free goals by allowing them to exploit an issue they care nothing about (prison conditions) as a political football.

No.

You make an awful lot of unfounded assumptions.

lesbians and trans men don't want children.

Women who campaign for single sex prisons don't sincerely care about prison conditions.

This undermines your arguments.

So how on earth are you classifying gender according to personality traits.

You know you can make AI say anything you want, right?

Like, I asked Chat GPT: Is the definition "a woman is an adult with an internal sense of being female" a circular definition?

And it replied:

Yes. As written, that definition is circular, or at least close enough that many philosophers and linguists would criticize it as such.

The definition is:

"A woman is an adult with an internal sense of being female."

The key issue is that it defines woman in terms of female, but if "female" is itself understood as "someone who is a woman" or depends on the same underlying concept of gender identity, then the definition doesn't explain anything—it just shifts the question from "What is a woman?" to "What does it mean to be female?"

Whether it's circular depends on how female is defined:

• If female means "of the biological sex that typically produces large gametes (eggs)," then the definition is not strictly circular. It would mean: "A woman is an adult who internally identifies with the female sex." One can debate whether that's an adequate definition, but it isn't circular in the logical sense because "female" has an independent definition.

• If female means "having the gender identity associated with women," then it becomes circular because "woman" and "female" are defining each other.

This distinction is at the center of many philosophical debates about sex and gender. Different frameworks use these terms differently:

• Some define woman biologically (adult human female).

• Some define woman in terms of gender identity (someone whose gender identity is female).

• Others argue that woman is a social role, social category, or family-resemblance concept that cannot be captured by a simple necessary-and-sufficient definition.

From the perspective of logic, a good definition should introduce concepts that are more basic or independently understood. If every key term ultimately refers back to the concept being defined, the definition is considered circular because it doesn't provide explanatory content.

So, the answer is:

• Yes, if "female" is being used as a gender-identity concept that itself presupposes "woman."

• No, if "female" has an independent definition (for example, a biological one), though the resulting definition may still be debated on other grounds.

So, you know, pretty useless, so let's agree to use our own brains, shall we?

So should the key classification between humans be based on ...

A) Clear, distinctive, verifiable biological differentiation between the sexes that has been the cornerstone of human experience since the dawn of time.

OR

B) A fuzzy amalgamation of personality traits and feelings, that there is no actual definition for and is completely subjective, unverifiable and encompassing different expectations depending on historical periods, class, culture.

Gosh I don't know. That's a hard one. 🤔

Well I mean Option A suggest that women need rights for concrete reasons and those rights might be inconvenient to men, while Option B suggests that women don't need any rights at all...

lesbians and trans men don't want children.

That wasn't me.

Women who campaign for single sex prisons don't sincerely care about prison conditions.

Nary a whisper unless its about trans women proves my point. Same goes for 'what about the children' & women's sports. You people don't give a flying fuck otherwise & you have no form to prove it.

Quite