You see there is the twisting. Because what you describe as men I believe are women. They are I suppose transwomen. Which leads me to wonder why you can't refer to them as transwomen, even if you consider they are men. I suppose it is because it makes me sound so much worse.
Well there's the rub. To me, a woman is a woman. A transwoman is a man who 'lives as a woman', although it's difficult to know what that means. A man is an adult human male. A medical doctor would (I assume) define men and women in terms of their biology, too.
I have asked you directly to differentiate these groups but you have refused to do so, other than to say 'a woman is anyone who says she is a woman' or similar. I'm sorry, but 'because you believe something' doesn't make it true, and because I use the words 'man' and 'woman' in the biological, scientific and customary way does not mean that I use the terms to 'make things sound worse'. That is all in your head.
Unfortunately it is a method used by people who want to eliminate or denigrate a group of people they don't like or care about. Refuse to use their proper name, call them something which misrepresents them or belittles them.
Maybe, but you can't extrapolate from that that I am doing anything of the sort. I am not. I use the terms as described above, as do most people. I am not the one who is out of step. Unless you tell me how you differentiate between a man, a man in a dress and a transwoman, and what 'living as a woman' actually means, I don't understand your lexis, so it is difficult to talk with nuance. All I can do is stick to common parlance, which suits 99% of English-speaking people. Are you saying that the whole language should change to suit you, when you know perfectly well that the mangling of the language is one of the things to which people object strongly?
If only you could at least use their proper name. But I suppose saying I think transwomen should be in women's spaces doesn't have quite the same effect does it? And isn't actually misogynistic. Over-dramatic language such as 'If only you could use their proper name' is pointless. There is no proper name without a proper definition, which you refuse to provide. I understand what a transwoman is, but when I refer to someone who is in a woman's safe space for nefarious reasons, I am not referring to transwomen - I mean a man, so the proper term is 'man'. No?
So I think my case is proven.
Well again, I'm afraid that you thinking something is not enough to make it so. By 'your case' do you mean that I have called you a misogynist? I've lost track a bit, but I thought that was the accusation. The fact remains that I have said that some of the things you post are misogynistic, but I don't think I have said that you are a misogynist. It's possible I suppose, but that's not the sort of thing I would usually say, so I doubt it.
It's OK to castigate a woman who disagrees with you.
It's OK to label her misogynistic
It's OK to twist and misrepresent her views to prove your point.
It's OK not to acknowledge or even recognise that she has real concerns about the way in which women are already being targeted because they don't conform to gender stereotypes.
I refute that. I have no need to twist your words as IMO what you say about men being women is simply untrue and many of your explanations of why you think so are simply lacking in any sort of logical sense (eg the one about appearance on this thread which remains unanswered). Give me an example of your words being twisted, as I have done with your posts countless times? Not kowtowing to your choice of vocabulary is not twisting your words though.
My defence, however, in response to the accusations of name-calling, bullying etc, is that when I say something is misogynistic I do so in context, and allow a right of reply to which I respond. I do my best to explain why I think as I do, rather than make it a personal thing. I don't snipe from the sidelines, make generalised digs and ignore posts with questions I can't answer.