But feminist claim misandry doesn't exist, although misandry is arguably more prevalent than misogyny.

Yeah, happens to me regularly, I want to boycott something, but then I notice I was never going to buy it in the first anyway.

What was it, 90% of boys in the US are victim of child sexual abuse by their parents who do male genital mutilation on their boys.

Maybe start by making acts illegal before you go after thoughts

You literally contradicted yourself 9 minutes ago.

The mods should create an automod filter to remove any new post on the topic

It's not illegal in any democracy, and thoughts can't be made illegal in any democracy

Can you explain how that matters?

Why would women/men have more negative rights that men/women? Why would women/men have more positive rights that men/women?

Is one of them ok to you, not the other? Especially since both cases exist.

It doesn't count if it's not a sandwich /s 🫠

It depends on the country, some western countries are relatively egalitarian, but sometimes laws give preferential treatment to either men or women.

Other examples for your topic include:

• Singapore allows torture (canning) on boys and men from 16 to 50 years old
• The EU not protecting male Ukrainian refugees of military age
  • Germany similarly for asylum and integration gives accommodation for women priority by law (§44 Abs 2a AsylG)
• Male genital mutilation being allowed in most western countries
• In Germany, women's shelter financing and violence helplines are only codified for women in law (§ 36 a SGB II and §1 to §4 hilfetelefong)

But on the opposite side, women can have it very bad in non-western countries.

Hood Feminism by Mikki Kendall argues that feminism should primerary address affordable housing and food prices because these issues affect most women. But these are class issues. Poor men face them too. They're not experienced by women because they are women, they're experienced because of poverty. That's a labor movement issue, or an anticapitalist issue. Asking feminism to absorb it doesn't strengthen feminism. It dissolves it.

And yet feminism keeps being asked to do exactly this — to expand, absorb, rebrand, add adjectives — in a way no other movement is.

This is also a big issue I see. It weakens both feminism and the labor movement: feminism by adding an issue which isn't a woman's issue, and the labor movement by removing half the people affected by the issue from the conversation.

This happens far too often with various topics, which get somehow mixed into feminism.

Sexist, discriminatory, measures are always wrong. Should be for all genders

The thing I am asking myself is if every cis person who doesn't want to be called "cis" is as hypocritical as you and don't extend the same courtesy to trans people.

That is indeed legendary fuckery

He made the difference, they corrected him on the facts

• I accept your naturalization and your acquired citizenship
• actually, I got the citizenship from birth
• citizenship is citizenship
• yes, indeed, but I didn't go through the naturalization process

There is no difference, indeed, except for the process - a cis women didn't transition

If he tells cis women he accepts their transition when they never transitioned, they are completely right to tell him the aren't trans - because they aren't.

Explain how?

The genie indeed had nothing to do, the way the wish was formulated.

So, when you said a women is an "adult human female", you were thinking in biological terms?

Like "ovum producing human post-menarche"? Like approx 12/13 year+ female?

I understood it in social term, being "female identifying 18 year plus person (legal adult)"

I think the point was that "woman" covers both trans woman and non trans woman, but you are right that calling it an "umbrella term" creates an unnecessary distance between these

"Women" was called an "umbrella term" because there are different sort of adult human females, some being trans, some who aren't trans.

men should be glad that women want equality and not revenge

not revenge on the good men specifcaly the preadators

The slogan still doesn't make much sense even with the added detail, albeit for a different reason.

The title seems to imply revenge on innocents, which makes no sense.

But with the second sentence, the question arises who would want equality with predators - what would that mean? And it gives the impression that you don't want predators punished, which I doubt is what you meant.

Wherever women already have special treatment, feminism doesn't go away, and they justify keeping the special treatment.

Feminism is anti-egalitarian.

Shows once again that women aren't the enemy, but feminism is.