[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The laser-focus on the selective use of adjectives in an obviously pointed and agenda-driven manner. "These MALES, these FEMALES, this OTHER MALE. MALES this, MALES that, look at what these MALE THINGS are doing".

It's just the exact flipside of The Truth's rhetoric about women and completely disregards and eschews individualism .

I have to use males and females though. As 'woman' and 'man' seem to have different meanings these days. Especially on threads about trans stuff...

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I have to use males and females though. As 'woman' and 'man' seem to have different meanings these days. Especially on threads about trans stuff...

This is exactly my point, though, it's pointed and promotes division and tribalism which is the entire problem. It is specific individuals with a specific agenda, attacking other individuals. It has absolutely nothing to do with the vast majority of males, or females, and that's what makes the extreme focus on these specific descriptors a problem. Talk of "typical males", "men", "male violence", "male actions" and "patriarchy" is barely different (if different at all?) to Truth's bizarre ideas about "what women are like", "what women do to men".

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

This is exactly my point, though, it's pointed and promotes division and tribalism which is the entire problem. It is specific individuals with a specific agenda, attacking other individuals. It has absolutely nothing to do with the vast majority of males, or females, and that's what makes the extreme focus on these specific descriptors a problem. Talk of "typical males", "men", "male violence", "male actions" and "patriarchy" is barely different (if different at all?) to Truth's bizarre ideas about "what women are like", "what women do to men".

I don't believe I have ever mentioned patriarchy? I don't understand that argument fully so don't think I would ever use it

Also don't understand the objection to saying 'male violence'. Surely people are able to understand this refers to violent males rather than all males?! Or do I need a 'not all men' disclaimer?

Also I am not trying to blame this incident (and the 60 year old attacked) on all males. But it was males (who say they are female) doing the attacking, and females on the receiving end. Not sure what the issue is with pointing this out tbh. transactivists are mostly male. And misogynistic males at that. Also people who believe violence solves problems...and use violence to 'shut up' alternative views.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I don't believe I have ever mentioned patriarchy? I don't understand that argument fully so don't think I would ever use it

Also don't understand the objection to saying 'male violence'. Surely people are able to understand this refers to violent males rather than all males?! Or do I need a 'not all men' disclaimer?

Also I am not trying to blame this incident (and the 60 year old attacked) on all males. But it was males (who say they are female) doing the attacking, and females on the receiving end. Not sure what the issue is with pointing this out tbh. transactivists are mostly male. And misogynistic males at that. Also people who believe violence solves problems...and use violence to 'shut up' alternative views.

Because the problem, and so many of the west's social problems at the moment, has nothing to do with groups or grouping beyond the grouping itself. Like I said; it's tribalism, and the rhetoric around it relies heavily on the use of grouping terms.

"Transactivists attacked TERFS who are a branch of the tribe of Feminism, and they were stopped by some passing cismales"

When there are most likely only 5 or 6 people involved in the entire thing. It overinflates it and - most importantly - it plays right into that "tribal narrative".people seem to be utterly desperate to pigeonhole others - and themselves - into specific packages... and thus the cycle continues.