( CeruleanPisces )
Lastly, if trans rights are so important to protect, and so badly requiring protection like they say they are, surely it would hold up to the scrutiny of a debate then?
Why do they fear open honest debate?
I know I can defend my stance on being a "terf", so why can't they defend their stance on their opinions?
Wait, wait, wait. They can't be lying about all of it can they?
If black people’s rights are so important to protect, and so badly requiring protection like they say they are, surely it would hold up to the scrutiny of a debate then?
Why do they fear open honest debate?
I know I can defend my stance on being a "racist", so why can't they defend their stance on their opinions?
If gay people’s rights are so important to protect, and so badly requiring protection like they say they are, surely it would hold up to the scrutiny of a debate then?
Why do they fear open honest debate?
I know I can defend my stance on being a "homophobe", so why can't they defend their stance on their opinions?
If Muslim people’s rights are so important to protect, and so badly requiring protection like they say they are, surely it would hold up to the scrutiny of a debate then?
Why do they fear open honest debate?
I know I can defend my stance on being an "islamophobe", so why can't they defend their stance on their opinions?
If Jewish people’s rights are so important to protect, and so badly requiring protection like they say they are, surely it would hold up to the scrutiny of a debate then?
Why do they fear open honest debate?
I know I can defend my stance on being an "anti-Semite" and “holocaust denier”, so why can't they defend their stance on their opinions?
If women’s rights are so important to protect, and so badly requiring protection like they say they are, surely it would hold up to the scrutiny of a debate then?
Why do they fear open honest debate?
I know I can defend my stance on being a "misogynist" and “reactionary”, so why can't they defend their stance on their opinions?
Do I need to go on?!
( hypatia )
These are frustrated men who long for battle. They are chafing at the mediocrity and boredom of their privileged lives and desperately want to prove themselves by conquering enemies in battle.
Their male urges are understandable, but also act as further proof of how unwomanly they really are.
And there it is, folks.
The TERFs’ “feminism” laid bare.
Where is the feminism of the women who argued they are more than capable of handling the stress and strength needed for any “male” occupation? All those women who broke the ceilings that were imposed on them, only to become not just doctors and lawyers, but also join physical occupations such as firefighters, mountain rescuers, even soldiers?
Where is the feminism of women who chafed at the constant derision thrown towards them, such as the claims that women are too “emotional”, “hysterical”, “irrational”, “illogical”, “soft”, “weak”, “superfluous”, “helpless”, “meek” and “timid”?
Where?
And then this critter goes and outright affirms such patriarchal stereotypes. If you’re “too aggressive”, “too shrill”, or “too combative”, you’re not a real woman. So watch your tone, or else your womanhood is revoked. Be ladylike, woman, or else.
These people never even realized when their ideology became one of the most cherished champions of the very patriarchy they think they are opposing.
In a sense, it is tragic… but mainly it’s disgusting. They will ‘fight’ the patriarchy all the way to the moment when they bring about its triumphant victory… and they will cheer, somehow still thinking that they actually won.
Perhaps afterwards, and only then, they will finally realize what monster they have helped resurrect — at least those of them who won’t have gradually evolved by then into realizing that they actually don’t have any problem with becoming “trad wives.”