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.

This is so…

At this stage the whataboutery is just fuckwittery. It is just sometimes more efficient to post previous answers … in this case there is a fucking 40 page thread about that very point being argued. And lurkers can see the tactics unroll for themselves if they read through.

Think you are confusing what happens on X with real life. Lots happens in the world that doesn’t appear on X.

Racism now, eh?

I think it's worth starting a thread like this every so often, just to check our thinking against those who disagree with us. Even after all this time, I still find it so surprising that such a dangerous ideology has such a nonsensical framework underpinning it. I guess a part of me doesn't want to believe people can be so gullible, but here we are. It is so sad to see educated women fall for it but, as has been pointed out many times, highly educated people are sometimes more susceptible to fooling themselves than the rest of us, and many women also have complex reasons for trying to ingratiate themselves with manipulative men.

Anyway, nothing on this thread has challenged any of my thinking on this issue, (though I must confess that I no longer read Bailey's posts on any thread 😁).

Wait, then if you think the people who want some spaces to be single sex are hypocrites, because they don't want every space to be single sex , then all the people (like you?) who want single gender spaces are also hypocrites, for not wanting to divide every public space by gender.

This dude just makes me cringe so much.

I dont know how young(er) people cannot see how painfully pretentious this communication style is.
I know it's AI, but can't they read back what it has written? And decide not to post it?because of how fucking pompous and 😬 it sounds?

I know we're supposed to think this is a middle aged Australian woman, but I think your average middle aged Australian woman would not be posting this fucking AI drivel.
She'd give herself a slap and tell herself to stop being so cringe.

Aaaaanyway, it's the law so it doesn't really matter.
As long as you're not utilising ANY spaces/services/opportunities reserved for women (for good reason) then do whatever you like.
Is life not hard enough for you? I think everyone is feeling the affects of the world being a bit bonkers at the moment. Life's a bit weird and hard for many reasons at moment.

There are solutions for TW not using single sex areas listed above - campaign for your own spaces, and I promise you you'd get support from GC women.
I totally accept TW get abuse and attacked and discriminated against, and other awful things, but they're not alone in this. Women do too.
The solution to stop discrimination against TW isn't to disadvantage women.

Its the law and has been for a long time. Some people just didn't listen properly when it was first passed.

Stop trying to make womens lives harder , and more unsafe. Why would you do this?

Anyway, nothing on this thread has challenged any of my thinking on this issue, (though I must confess that I no longer read Bailey's posts on any thread 😁).

I don’t have the patience to respond to any posts written by the handmaid brigade.
I do skim read them to check if they’ve brought any scientific and proven evidence to the discussion but, of course, they haven’t.

We’re told often enough that men identifying as women know they’ve not really changed sex but feel as if the should have been born female and that to deny them their beliefs is so cruel and causes them deep emotional distress.

However, we’ve had trans identifying individuals that believe they have become biologically female because they’re taking X-sex hormones and their body has undergone gender reassignment. (it’s not called a sex change, it’s surgery to alter their bodies to align with their gender identity)

Any women that thinks men are miraculously transformed into women just by ‘thinking’ it, seriously need to think about booking some therapy sessions.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

you literally said it's not circular because what a 'woman' is, is in the eye of the beholder.

So I am the beholder and I say when I see a man.

Or are you admitting you don’t know what a beholder is?

That’s given me such a laugh 😆

If womanhood is truly 'in the eye of the beholder' that is 99.9999% of 'transwomen' knocked out of contention.

I'm not buying that Howse is on the thread. We would have had at least one reference to motte and bailey castles or whatever the fuck it was that he wittered on about.

The original point I made was about " ... anyone who identifies as a woman".

I asked this: "Do you see now ... how your "It's anyone who identifies as a woman" could not be a valid definition?"

Even your AI agrees that's a circular definition as I said.

You want to change the subject. Fine. Go ahead. I've found arguing philosophy with AI not much fun, however; the level sticks at around sixth form albeit the words multiply inexorably.

[Your AI doesn't get much right btw. Maybe ask another LLM to tell you where it's going wrong?]

Oh, and try not to confuse normativity with value.

Even your AI agrees that's a circular definition as I said.

So AI = good when it agrees with you?

In any case, it depends on the framework according to the link. Here's a more detailed explanation that fleshes it out. Let me know what you think.

lastreviotheory.medium.com/why-a-woman-is-someone-who-identifies-as-a-woman-is-not-a-meaningless-statement-467d18f0400a

Women don’t identify as women. We acknowledge that our biological bodies confirm we are women.

Again, there's an' Is-Ought Gap' here.

The is-ought problem occurs when people attempt to draw moral, social, or legal imperatives directly from that biological fact.

The"Is": Humans are biologically sexed into male and female categories.

The "Ought" (Bridging the gap): Therefore, society ought to legally define women only by this biology, or individuals ought to act in strict accordance with their biological sex.

This jump from fact to value requires an ethical or ideological premise, because biology alone cannot logically dictate human rights, legal definitions, or moral duties.

I think "is and ought" is the new motte and bailey.

Nonsense.

There's no "ought" in using specific words to designate specific phenomena. "Red" and "blue" refer to specific wavelengths, just like "man" and "woman" refer to specific biologies.

"Therefore, society ought to legally define women only by this biology,"

It's the other way around: it's this biology that defines the word "woman" in the first place.

individuals ought to act in strict accordance with their biological sex.

This is literally the opposite of the GC position, which is that individuals ought to act however they like or want, regardless of their biological sex.

biology alone cannot logically dictate human rights, legal definitions, or moral duties.

You're the one asserting this. You ought to justify it, not just say it as though it were self-evident, which it isn't.

Another Is-Ought you're committing: because some people feel in some way, biological definitions ought to be redefined to mean something other than what they mean. Very much dependent on an ideological premise indeed.

The"Is": Humans are biologically sexed into male and female categories.

This is a fact.

The "Ought" (Bridging the gap): Therefore, society ought to legally define women only by this biology, or individuals ought to act in strict accordance with their biological sex.

In the UK, sex in the Equality Act is legally defined as biological sex. "Ought" doesn't come into it. It's the law.

And what do you mean by saying that people "ought to act in strict accordance with their biological sex"? Do you mean that men should stay out of women's spaces? This obviously follows from the the fact that the law defines sex as biological sex.

So all you're saying here is that you disagree with the law. I know that is-ought is your favourite catchphrase at the moment, but it's a bit of a red herring here.

It really is a red herring.

Women’s need for single sex spaces are because of our biology. We are (taken as a sex class) smaller and weaker than men, and are vulnerable to assault, including sexual assault, by men.

Our biology is at the root of our need for single sex situations, services and spaces.

Hence using biology as a basis for organising these.

It really isn’t complicated.

After all, there's a reason why there's no corresponding movement from men to exclude transmen from their spaces: that's because transmen don't represent a threat to men, and everyone knows it. If it was just a matter of bigotry, then there would absolutely be loads of men screaming to high heavens about those horrible women trying to invade their spaces. But there aren't, because they don't care, because they know exactly which group is a threat to the other.

There's no "ought" in using specific words to designate specific phenomena. "Red" and "blue" refer to specific wavelengths, just like "man" and "woman" refer to specific biologies.

But woman doesn't just apply to one specific phenomena (sex) its also a social category.

woman
noun
uk
/ˈwʊm.ən/ us
/ˈwʊm.ən/
plural women uk
/ˈwɪm.ɪn/ us
/ˈwɪm.ɪn/
Add to word list
A1 [ C ]
an adult female human being:
She's a really nice woman.
A woman and two men were arrested the day after the explosion.
Women first got the vote in Britain in 1918.
She is Ireland's first woman (= female) president.

an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been considered to have a different sex at birth:
Mary is a woman who was assigned male at birth.
transgender woman Marie is a transgender woman (= she was considered to be male at birth).

It's the other way around: it's this biology that defines the word "woman" in the first place.

That would be 'female' not 'woman'.

This is literally the opposite of the GC position, which is that individuals ought to act however they like or want, regardless of their biological sex.

There's an "or" you missed.

biology alone cannot logically dictate human rights, legal definitions, or moral duties.
You're the one asserting this. You ought to justify it, not just say it as though it were self-evident, which it isn't.

Um no, that's the GC position. Remember how they demanded SC 'ought' to define it biologically? And how thrilled GC's were/are when the SC chose to do it?

Another Is-Ought you're committing: because some people feel in some way, biological definitions ought to be redefined to mean something other than what they mean. Very much dependent on an ideological premise indeed.

You are spectacularly confusing (& projecting) an explanation for the rationale of gender identification (values) with being the same as biological/sociological facts that influence them.

This is what you are doing with a 'female is a woman' is-ought car crash.

First things first: are you actually unable to talk to someone without insulting them or their position ("car crash"), or do you just choose to do so? If the latter, why do you feel that need?

But woman doesn't just apply to one specific phenomena (sex) its also a social category.

Then by all means, go out and campaign for "woman" in the law to be taken also under its social category definition. Nobody's stopping you. I do believe you will run into massive problems very soon, though.

There's an "or" you missed.

I really don't see where it would go.

Remember how they demanded SC 'ought' to define it biologically? And how thrilled GC's were/are when the SC chose to do it?

The SC literally didn't choose to do it, because they had no choice in the first place. They explain at long lengths why any other definition would make no sense and render the EA void in this matter.

You are spectacularly confusing (& projecting) an explanation for the rationale of gender identification (values) with being the same as biological/sociological facts that influence them.

Again, you're stating something without justifying or explaining it. So I say you're wrong, and we're equal.

This is what you are doing with a 'female is a woman' is-ought car crash.

I think you mean: A woman is an adult female human being, which yes, is the very first definition of "woman".

First things first: are you actually unable to talk to someone without insulting them or their position ("car crash"), or do you just choose to do so? If the latter, why do you feel that need?

Wellll excusez moi! But you get what you give…..actually much less to be fair. I've never bee on a forum with this level of disgusting vitriolic vicious mocking irrespective of how gentle challenging interlocutors are. So in the interests of setting boundaries, those that earn respect will get it. And you know full well you haven't.

Then by all means, go out and campaign for "woman" in the law to be taken also under its social category definition. Nobody's stopping you. I do believe you will run into massive problems very soon, though.

That's irrelevant to this 'ought-is' discussion.

I really don't see where it would go.

"The "Ought" (Bridging the gap): Therefore, society ought to legally define women only by this biology, or individuals ought to act in strict accordance with their biological sex."

"The SC literally didn't choose to do it, because they had no choice in the first place. They explain at long lengths why any other definition would make no sense and render the EA void in this matter."

The SC determined 'woman' & 'sex' to be interpreted as biological for the purposes of of the Equality Act. The court determined this based on the original legislative intent, the statutory need for coherence, and the practical necessity of maintaining single-sex spaces. They didn't make a ruling on the objective meaning of 'woman'. Do do you see the difference? And they used values based reasoning to do so.

Again, you are confusing facts that exist for their moral/practical/ethical applications.

I think you mean: A woman is an adult female human being, which yes, is the very first definition of "woman".

First or last is irrelevant. The fact is 'female' does not mean 'woman' because woman isn't only about biological sex & female is. When you say a female is only a woman then you are making 'ought' (values) statement.

an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been considered to have a different sex at birth:

How does a man live as female? Is it by invading women's spaces?

That's irrelevant to this 'ought-is' discussion.

This isn't an "ought-is" discussion no matter how much you would like it to be.

The fact is 'female' does not mean 'woman' because woman isn't only about biological sex & female

Woman, man, girl and boy are words which refer to biological sex in humans, just like ewe, ram, cow and bull refer to biological sex in other species. But for your own safety, please don't try to milk a bull just to try to prove your point.

I think that you are right. It is as if he can only hold one trite notion in his head at a time.

Was also going to say that.