You can't have a subset of a group which is everyone who is the group.'The same as'.
You can't have a subset of a group which is everyone who is the group.
You can have subsets of another group who want to be part of the first group, but can't be.
Fair pointThe problem is you're asserting that "female" is the entire set of "women".
Sorry.The problem is you're asserting that "female" is the entire set of "women".
MRAs have been trolling feminism-centric areas of the web since forever.
Sure.
But they are practically non-existent. I've never met one. I've never seen them mentioned in mainstream media. "Trolling" is probably the exactly correct word, because a lot of them are just pretending, trying to get a reaction.
I have heard the term "SJW" outside of the internet. I've met trans people and trans rights activists. But these MRAs? Haven't seen hide nor hair of them. They can't be a significant force in the world.
Mead, just because you haven't met one irl doesn't mean anything at all. Trolling is their online behavior, but their opinions are probably truly internalized and just dressed down when they're needling women for fun online, pretending to be a supporter who just think we women need to adjust our thinking and MO to be more "effective" or whatever.
Woman - "female human"
What does the cis mean?
Meeting hardliner advocates IRL or not isn't really a useful metric of much in my book. I mean, in general there is a certain amount of self-sorting and not freely volunteering of information that it is difficult to say anything about the real world with that knowledge. For example, I can't say I've met an NRA member.
But more broadly, advocates don't need to be large, visible groups in our day to day lives to set the agenda or frame mainstream debate. For example, certain US States now allow you to change your birth certificate and State IDs to "X" for "non-binary". Or some of their ideas that they are defending can have widespread cultural acceptance already, as I suspect is more of the case with the "MRA".
The problem when you "talk past" someone in certain situations that gets you branded a hateful cislord bigot.
I've literally had people; otherwise nice smart reasonable people, say that "misgendering someone" is pretty much on the same level as a slur and my entire Facebook feed has been awash in the last week with the report that not using a person's preferred pronoun is a leading cause of suicide.
So yeah... can't win, can't lose, can't quit the game.
*Twilight Zone theme plays in the background*
Ok, I give up. Who said anything about reproductive status?
Sure.
But they are practically non-existent. I've never met one. I've never seen them mentioned in mainstream media. "Trolling" is probably the exactly correct word, because a lot of them are just pretending, trying to get a reaction.
I have heard the term "SJW" outside of the internet. I've met trans people and trans rights activists. But these MRAs? Haven't seen hide nor hair of them. They can't be a significant force in the world.
Cis women are a subset of women.
More hysterical speculation. You DO realize that the MRA's are closely aligned with the alt-right wrt to transgenders and allowing transgenders to "get everything they want" doesn't seem to be an essential component of their, decidedly, chaotic game plan?
This term is considered to be grossly offensive by a large number of women. Probably by most women who have figured out what it means (or actually heard it used). To continue to insist on using it after this has been explained is even more grossly offensive. Not born with external genitalia which were recognised as female, and raised as a girl? Not a woman.
Find other words for people who are otherwise described, and don't erase our identity by appropriating our actual name.
Would you continue to use a derogatory term for an ethnic group after it had been explained to you that many members of that group considered it to be extremely offensive? No? Then stoppit.