Well… there is nothing. Sex category has always been distinct from the nature person's body. One is a category of our understanding. The other is an existing body. We've never actually had two categories of sex. I only used "sex" as a label of physiology to connect what I was talking about to our usual discourses.

The poststructuralist analysis is sex and gender (viz. Butler) has gone even further: "sex" (i.e. a person's body) does not equal sex (i.e. the category in which we understanding people to belonging to because their physiology).

Quite possibly, being an ally is more than just a question of saying you support someone, even though it is not mutually exclusive with making bigoted mistakes.

You are wrong about that. doctor unknown is, from what I've seen of these "fights," bang on target at calling out when regulars are involved with bigotry. They are not merely getting into fights for the sake of it, they are calling out ignorance. Abrasive and short their comments might be, but they are neither…

Hopefully… pretty much all allies are , in one way or another, as they fall outside the oppression suffered by the groups they are supporting. Ignorance of some issue almost always comes-up. Allies should expect they are bigoted in some way.

Firstly, doctor unknown was initially talking about the behaviour of the weatherman, not John Oliver.

The problem is you are roasting her for not being academic enough. You are saying everyone is paying too much attention to what was she is saying (and so the issues she is talking about) because the style she is speaking in. Your entire point is, effectively, no-one should be paying what she's says any significant …

doctor unknown is correct here. The lashing out is at people for their ignorance and their bigotry (many whom are allies). Spewing more "bile" at allies if often necessary because they often have a greater interest in arguing against identifications of their bigotry.

"Her videos boil down to her identifying something she doesn't like, defining it on her own terms, and finding examples that fit her narrative (and even that not always successfully)."

Oh, I know you weren't trying to make it. My point is, however, the power expression involved in these attacks on FemFreq/Sarkeesian is being ignored.

See… this is a problem. You just suggested nothing Sarkeesian has argued deserves any place in the discussion, even though she is correct about many issues surrounding the representation of women. You dismissing these issues exist.

Not so much… a lot of that is people misunderstanding her arguments because they've complete missed the context of social values and understanding she is talking about.

You can, you know… if you if you don't begin proceedings by suggesting Sarkeesian's doesn't know anything and implying she isn't talking about any issues that matter (i.e. exactly what GamerGate does).

The problem is that attacking Feminist Frequency or Sarkeesian has nothing to do with those failures. It doesn't actually describe what is missing from them or what they get wrong. All it does is proclaim that they have nothing useful or important to say on the issue, such that the cannot be considered to be relevant…

Well… they sort of are in way. The self-promotion thread is posted in comments of the daily film writing thread. I don't mind people talking about themselves for a bit. It is not like the community does it at the expense of discussing the linked articles. They talk about them too.

Ehh… this bothers me quite a bit. The entire point of asking "difficult" questions is actually to make an example of someone who is doing something wrong. Investigative style journalism which is critical of the practices of those it is interviewing sort of works entirely on the basis the answers are already known.

I think there are actually good answers to that question. The problem is they require the interviewed subject to do all the work setting out the context of the issues. They not only have to have the relevant knowledge of feminism and its concerns (which not everyone does), but they must put in effort to explain it and…

With respect to the 1% (I wouldn't describe it as 1%, since it implies what people are ignorant of doesn't matter ) someone doesn't know about, it sort of does.

Holding back my wariness about expressions of disdain at people talking about the issued which matter to them for a moment*, I can't help but feel you are worried by something far more concrete than tone.

Which is part of my point: arguments about "political correctness" don't actually say anything about those issues in activism. Instead of pointing out how some people might be acting isn't actually furthering the cause they are supposed to be fighting for, it merely appeals to some nebulous force of ill which is…