Read on Twitter
There's a peculiar formalism to the gender ideology, like debating with stoners. When women defend their boundaries, the genderist cries: "see, your argument is just like when traditionalists tried to defend their rules against gays". Surprise! Boundary defence has regularities.
The formalism, like the attention to bedfellows, grievance archaeology, hate allegations, funding slurs and the rest, are all techniques to avoid engaging on the political substance.
Again, this is a core ingredient of the ideology, not a peripheral detail. Its authority is only sustained so long as the debate can be confined within the terms of "the ground you stand on" (identity) and not "the reasons you offer".
In response to the routine "it's like Section 28 all over again" gambit, it might be interesting to check how genderists would go about upholding the boundary against "Minor Attracted People" (ie, rape fantasists) *without* in any way formally echoing previous boundary defences.
Assuming they would want to oppose MAPs, naturally.
Boundaries seem to trouble many of these folks. They don't subscribe to the old insight that strong fences makes good neighbours, since they have no experience of property ownership - of having fought hard to carve out a space for oneself.
It's like the John & Yoko School of International Relations.
