Originally a comment by Bjarte Foshaug on Misogyny forever for the union makes us feeble.

When gender apologists speak of “inclusion” and fighting for the liberation of “all women” (as opposed to “only ‘cis’ women”), clearly what we are meant to envision is taking the circle that already includes the ‘cis’ women and expanding it to also include the ‘trans’ women. As always when it comes to alt-left slogans (Not arguments. As we all know, the alt-left isn’t in the argumentation business), we’re supposed to hear it, let it resonate just long enough to have some warm fuzzy gut reaction and then think about it no more.

If you do think about it (and are therefore guilty of “transphobia”, “transmisogyny”, “denying trans people’s right to exist”, “literal violence” etc.) it quickly becomes obvious that redefining “woman” to include people with innate physical traits more representative of fathers than mothers doesn’t simply “expand” the circle, but replaces it entirely.

We know for a fact that the old circle included roughly half the world’s population. How many does the new one include? It’s pretty much tautologically true that it includes trans people with innate physical traits more representative of fathers than mothers, since the Genderspeak definition of “woman” pretty much boils down to “whatever trans people with innate physical traits more representative of fathers than mothers happen to be” (or at least “people who think or feel in whatever way trans people with innate physical traits more representative of fathers than mothers happen to think or feel”). How many people with innate physical traits more representative of mothers than fathers (the people formerly known as “women”) does that include? Let’s just say I’m… unconvinced… that the end result is a bigger circle than before.