Sociopath Community

Tryptamine said: 

Frankly many are tired of all of this normalizing and inclusivity.

-

There always was going to be a point where your average Midwestern Joe became aware of their limits, where this drive for inclusion was never tempered.

I'm sure many felt and feel the same way over gender and race. 

Yes, it's inconvenient for the ones in privileged positions, so lets just let the others suffer for it. 🙄


Personally I don't find it that difficult to exercise tolerance, and see these steps as following a similar model to earlier forms of change that've been enacted during a pre-normalized period. Once enough people have grown up with it it won't seem as glaringly weird or whatever to them. 

It was a lubed slope from gays getting the right to marry, to the baker has to make a cake for them, to drag shows for kids.

Ignoring how overinflated those examples were back in their day, those stories are how many years old now?

I feel like having an entire rights movement be summed up as just a few events undermines the entire thing. 

Inclusion has expanded to point of advocacy for minor-attracted persons! Because of all of this, pendulum on social issues is about to swing back in a massive way.

This happened during the gay marriage propositions too, with people going on TV about how next people will want to marry their car or their dog. 

These cases are separate, and lumping them together like they're the same does no favors for anybody. Being misgendered (or fat for that matter) has nothing to do with pedophilia, and should be handled separately rather than lumped under one umbrella of "inclusivity" or "what-about"-isms. 

I think part of the calculus that people who have pushed this inclusivity agenda have been missing, is that they have been unilaterally pushing this way of life upon everyone else.

Is it really 'everyone else', or just those who've been flooded with anti-woke media? There's plenty of people who don't feel friction with the gender scenario, weight scenario, or many others without themselves being a part of it. 

It looks to me like it's more of a squeaky wheel issue where people like you end up cherry-picking singular anecdotal narratives to handle broader concepts across wide swaths of people. It's opposition always grabs at the most visually offensive examples and blows it up until people like you find themselves referencing it still over half a decade later. 

Seriously, for the trans movement it just took putting it's most glaringly costumed form adjacent to children (and bathrooms) to try to lump in other crowds, similar to how homosexuality was handled when it was still demonized more openly. 

Is inclusivity really that bad? At it's heart it's mainly about consideration and tolerance. I feel like the privileged complaint typically amounts to "Well what about me?". 

I am still convinced that bringing shame back into the picture would help solve things. 

Does it sometimes lead to people doing maladaptive things like trying to diet by not eating? Yes. Though I wonder if that is even necessarily worse than someone just staying fat. Hell, maybe people would even eat less processed foods if they got ridiculed over their weight.

Ignoring the ones who'd end up gaining more because of the shame, be it as a binge response, starving themselves until their metabolism shuts down, or a weak thyroid prompting the person to give up on themselves, I don't think it'd really solve it so much as potentially slow it down overall over how the US's business ecosystem caters to the problem, similar structurally to Vice's coverage of Kuwait's weight gain problem years ago: 



Starvers and people who make themselves throw up typically end up even fatter in the long run, you can even see it happen from those who used drugs like Adderall as an appetite suppressant. 

That being said, who knows where things will end up now that we got shit like Wegovy. Personally I'm fine with letting fat people be fat, it's not really my problem nor is it yours beyond what ways you can convince yourself that it's offended you. 

The reason I brought up the MAP advocacy was because I'm discussing fat acceptance and LGBT as symptoms of a broader push for inclusivity, not to draw an equivalency. It isn't coincidental that trans advocacy and a trend of releasing criminals with $0 bail happened in parallel; these are all rippling effects of a larger & overarching liberal humanist philosophy that has been at the helm of social change for the last 6 decades. The policymakers and mainstream media are not evaluating things like LGBT culture, or justice reform, or immigration policy, as isolated variables. These are all treated as part of one equation, specifically one meant to solve for the most equitable society that presupposes all backgrounds and cultures and idiosyncrasies are equally valid. And that way of considering things has been so deeply ingrained by education and media that it is often assumed a priori. Only now that policy has followed this way of thinking in perpetuity, has the contrast start to become clearly defined between what people wish to see in society, and what society becomes on this path.

The contrast does become revealed in things like new bathrooms, and I'll grant that's a visceral visual outlier. But I also sense that you're minimizing what kind of overhaul the trans movement has been causing. What about transitioned men dominating women at their sports and destorying a young life's worth of work, or going to women's jail, or the feelings of a woman and her child when a 6'2 guy who claims he's trans (but barely tries) gets to go into the bathrooms with them, and there's nothing anyone can do because this is the "new normal"? What about the bigger picture: A total transition from one state of things to another, and not everyone's on board? These sorts of changes are of a different magnitude than gays getting the right to marry. Forget what the "anti-woke media" is saying, liberals themselves are infighting over all of this!

Tryptamine said: 

The reason I brought up the MAP advocacy was because I'm discussing fat acceptance and LGBT as symptoms of a broader push for inclusivity, not to draw an equivalency.

I personally do not see how they are related beyond taking what's there and broadening it towards absurdity. 

"This guy wants to be a woman" or "this woman wants to be fat" has common elements with fucking pre-18 children? Come on now, like why even bring it up if you aren't aiming to lump completely unrelated concepts under a broader umbrella? 

I'm sorry, but personally, I find it far more acceptable for someone to crossdress or gain weight.

It isn't coincidental that trans advocacy and a trend of releasing criminals with $0 bail happened in parallel; these are all rippling effects of a larger & overarching liberal humanist philosophy that has been at the helm of social change for the last 6 decades.

Once again you are taking extreme cases, exaggerated, to try to express how an entire movement feels. Anti-woke media has put it's tendrils in you and now you're averaging shit that ought not to be as if "deviancy" is a larger enemy. 

These are all treated as part of one equation, specifically one meant to solve for the most equitable society that presupposes all backgrounds and cultures and idiosyncrasies are equally valid.

The ones in this mindset aren't as prone to lumping people together as much as the privileged outsiders are prone to. 

Like what, do you expect the leftist agenda is just... fine with pedo-shit just because some people within the movement aim to try to tie them together? Come on now.

These are all treated as part of one equation, specifically one meant to solve for the most equitable society that presupposes all backgrounds and cultures and idiosyncrasies are equally valid. And that way of considering things has been so deeply ingrained by education and media that it is often assumed a priori. Only now that policy has followed this way of thinking in perpetuity, has the contrast start to become clearly defined between what people wish to see in society, and what society becomes on this path.

In other words, slippery slope + gay agenda = pedophilia and clown world. 

Seriously dude, there's way more degrees between things. The squeaky wheel is just a tool, not life. Despite the position of unrelatability you find yourself in, it is not sensible to lump all these groups together just because they are unlike you. 

Tryptamine said: 

The contrast does become revealed in things like new bathrooms, and I'll grant that's a visceral visual outlier. But I also sense that you're minimizing what kind of overhaul the trans movement has been causing.

I see less of that, and more of a few events being blown out of proportion in order to scare people like you into action. Again your examples are literally years old, it must not be prevalent enough for other stories to reinforce the problem in any meaningful way. 

I could use the same logic you're using about school shooters to say that we can't trust anyone before the age of 21. 

How many trans people do you see doing these things in the rest of your paragraph: 

o What about transitioned men dominating women at their sports and destorying a young life's worth of work

o or going to women's jail,

o or the feelings of a woman and her child when a 6'2 guy who claims he's trans (but barely tries) gets to go into the bathrooms with them, and there's nothing anyone can do because this is the "new normal"?

You're taking exaggerated news stories that focus on conceptual areas and conservative fear, as how thousands of people should be dealt with who aren't pushing the bar as far as the squeakiest wheel. Frankly, I've found those in a woman's jail to be fairly cutthroat, and their sexism versus a trans person is liable to have that person be singled out. 

Take me for example, do you see me dominating at sports, going to women's jails (lol they'd eat me for breakfast), or making people uncomfortable in bathrooms? Should an entire movement be reduced to the fears of those who think the worst among them must be their entire team, and even further, are the situations typically as exaggerated as the politics that follow a few anecdotes? Why even defend criminals as if they are the same as everyone else, and is sports really on par with everyday life? 

You can literally take any movement and make them look bad if you only take their extreme most anecdotal stories, just like white people did over Malcolm X. 

What about the bigger picture: A total transition from one state of things to another, and not everyone's on board? These sorts of changes are of a different magnitude than gays getting the right to marry. Forget what the "anti-woke media" is saying, liberals themselves are infighting over all of this!

People were the same over race, religion, and gender. 

Should we not allow women or black people in the workplace because it makes people like you uncomfortable? It's the same issue to me, even if the peculiarities are of different specifics. 

You talk about how not everyone is on board, but is everyone on board with the current regime? Inconvenience for people like you is way worse for those who have more problems in their lives, and I don't see why those in advantaged positions should continue to keep things that way. 

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said: 

The reason I brought up the MAP advocacy was because I'm discussing fat acceptance and LGBT as symptoms of a broader push for inclusivity, not to draw an equivalency.

I personally do not see how they are related beyond taking what's there and broadening it towards absurdity. 

"This guy wants to be a woman" or "this woman wants to be fat" has common elements with fucking pre-18 children? Come on now, like why even bring it up if you aren't aiming to lump completely unrelated concepts under a broader umbrella? 

I'm sorry, but personally, I find it far more acceptable for someone to crossdress or gain weight.

It isn't coincidental that trans advocacy and a trend of releasing criminals with $0 bail happened in parallel; these are all rippling effects of a larger & overarching liberal humanist philosophy that has been at the helm of social change for the last 6 decades.

Once again you are taking extreme cases, exaggerated, to try to express how an entire movement feels. Anti-woke media has put it's tendrils in you and now you're averaging shit that ought not to be as if "deviancy" is a larger enemy. 

I've been talking about the seemingly limitless liberal push for acceptance, and that absolutely includes the trans movement, body positivity, and MAP advocacy. You're taking umbrage with the last item as if it means these are all as serious as one-another, though I said I wasn't trying to draw equivalencies. You think it's unfair that I've included something that people would broadly find distasteful among things that you would support. You're making my point for me with that: The push for acceptance has marched on unimpeded, only to stop where people reach their limits with it. On this point I'm not seeing how anyone can argue otherwise.

These are all treated as part of one equation, specifically one meant to solve for the most equitable society that presupposes all backgrounds and cultures and idiosyncrasies are equally valid.

The ones in this mindset aren't as prone to lumping people together as much as the privileged outsiders are prone to.

What do you mean by this?

Like what, do you expect the leftist agenda is just... fine with pedo-shit just because some people within the movement aim to try to tie them together? Come on now.

These are all treated as part of one equation, specifically one meant to solve for the most equitable society that presupposes all backgrounds and cultures and idiosyncrasies are equally valid. And that way of considering things has been so deeply ingrained by education and media that it is often assumed a priori. Only now that policy has followed this way of thinking in perpetuity, has the contrast start to become clearly defined between what people wish to see in society, and what society becomes on this path.

In other words, slippery slope + gay agenda = pedophilia and clown world. 

Seriously dude, there's way more degrees between things. The squeaky wheel is just a tool, not life. Despite the position of unrelatability you find yourself in, it is not sensible to lump all these groups together just because they are unlike you. 

Well I wouldn't lump in pedophilia with that, but the clown world seems in full-effect. Again, my framing isn't "liberal  = MAP advocate".

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said: 

The contrast does become revealed in things like new bathrooms, and I'll grant that's a visceral visual outlier. But I also sense that you're minimizing what kind of overhaul the trans movement has been causing.

I see less of that, and more of a few events being blown out of proportion in order to scare people like you into action. Again your examples are literally years old, it must not be prevalent enough for other stories to reinforce the problem in any meaningful way. 

I could use the same logic you're using about school shooters to say that we can't trust anyone before the age of 21. 

How many trans people do you see doing these things in the rest of your paragraph: 

o What about transitioned men dominating women at their sports and destorying a young life's worth of work

o or going to women's jail,

o or the feelings of a woman and her child when a 6'2 guy who claims he's trans (but barely tries) gets to go into the bathrooms with them, and there's nothing anyone can do because this is the "new normal"?

You're taking exaggerated news stories that focus on conceptual areas and conservative fear, as how thousands of people should be dealt with who aren't pushing the bar as far as the squeakiest wheel. Frankly, I've found those in a woman's jail to be fairly cutthroat, and their sexism versus a trans person is liable to have that person be singled out.

It's interesting that you brought up school shooters here. You're using that as an example to point out, "here is this group that is obviously bad, but we can't just punish everyone over a few people". Aside from the trans movement and the school shooting phenomena both having the same root problems of a severely deficient mental health system (and an equally deficient society), these are problems that have room for serious answers.

It shouldn't matter that the things which you bullet-pointed are not the everyday experience of all women. It does matter that some women do have to go through these things, in the cause of extreme inclusivity. And in this discussion, it's naive to think that a man who transitions and smashes women at college sports—that these women poured their lives into—is just that thing in itself. Stuff like that is obviously representative of a direction the entire culture is being steered toward, which is bringing along with it all sorts of concepts like misgendering, microaggression, toxic masculinity, and so-on. It's not true that people are just overreacting to extreme cases and outliers, when these are obviously the most clear breaking points of a massive cultural shift that is happening right in front of us. What is happening is readily apparent in everyday life, from how actors are cast now, to what kind of language will get you kicked from school or fired.

Turncoat said: 

Take me for example, do you see me dominating at sports, going to women's jails (lol they'd eat me for breakfast), or making people uncomfortable in bathrooms? Should an entire movement be reduced to the fears of those who think the worst among them must be their entire team, and even further, are the situations typically as exaggerated as the politics that follow a few anecdotes? Why even defend criminals as if they are the same as everyone else, and is sports really on par with everyday life? 

You can literally take any movement and make them look bad if you only take their extreme most anecdotal stories, just like white people did over Malcolm X. 

These aren't just fears. They are events that happen in reality. The reason they make headlines is because they are the points at which the sirens start going off for normies. That doesn't mean everything is great up until the alarms sound, either. For many, the extreme events are cases where they can finally point to something and say that there's been enough of this. And importantly, they can do so without worrying about being ostracized over it in this extremely PC culture.

You're saying that sometimes negatives happen, but these are outliers and extreme cases, and overall trans advocacy has been good. I reject that premise, but not on the foundation of those cases. The focus of what I've discussed has been of the boundless liberal humanist push for inclusivity. These cases are points of contrast where people en masse suddenly realize what kind of liberal society they want vs which kind they don't. My problems with the trans movement run a bit deeper than headline material. But that's tangential to what the current state of affairs is.

What about the bigger picture: A total transition from one state of things to another, and not everyone's on board? These sorts of changes are of a different magnitude than gays getting the right to marry. Forget what the "anti-woke media" is saying, liberals themselves are infighting over all of this!

People were the same over race, religion, and gender.

What do you mean by that?

You talk about how not everyone is on board, but is everyone on board with the current regime?

This is probably the most politically divisive period while we've been alive, no?

Inconvenience for people like you is way worse for those who have more problems in their lives, and I don't see why those in advantaged positions should continue to keep things that way. 

What do you mean by "advantaged positions"?

She said: 

soo who "should" be getting shamed,  the people that manudactor those awful toxic sugary and artificially flavored and fatty foods ??  The grocery stores and restaurants that supply people with those toxic foods, as well as the employees and the managers of those grocery stores and restaurants ?? And if it is not the health of obese pepple that you are actually concerned about, and instead your concern is about there presently seemingly not being enough food to feed everyone in the world, then is it the grocery stores and restaurants that throw away enough food to feed thousands of families throughout a week or soo, instead of donating all of that food to food pantries and suchb ?? Please clairfy :):)

 

Surely you do not mean that the sick obese people themselves are "the ones to blame" ??  They are sick people.  And as hopwfully any doctor or nurse would tell you,  sick people need medicine,  not toxic shame.

No...I do feel shame is something good, that we evolved it for a reason, and that it is proper to regulate the health of society with it just like they do in Korea. It's wrong to just call people sick and remove accountability from them as well. The cheapness of processed foods isn't an excuse to eat unhealthy, and a lot of times people are eating what is convenient out of laziness.

I agree with you that there is a serious problem with our food itself and what is being pushed as acceptable. I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of gentle government intervention here, maybe by taxing processed foods more to make organic foods less expensive, and holding companies more accountable for what they put in their foods. Ractopamine is banned in 160 countries, but we use it on our animals here. People still need to be personally accountable, but the system does make it easy to fail. That cuts to how much freedom we really want in our society.

and I feel sad that you seem to be encouraging anorexia and bullimia as well,  soo I hope that I am not understanding fully

Some would get eating disorders, but many would get healthy. Negative reinforcement is a good policy, but not a perfect one. Spanking in general is a good way to establish boundaries for children, but of course some go too far on this. It's wrong to discard things because some individuals can't handle them properly. Wouldn't anorexia and bulemia indicate that there's a mental health dynamic going on with those people as well? People can diet without having to be anorexic.

I personally believe all shame and guilt amd blame and moralistically judgmental comments and opinions to be toxic and very very unhealthy for everyone involved,  and all of humanity as well

I'm having a difficult time believing you are against all shame, guilt, and blame. I would guess you're more against bullying.

and I am very much not in agreement with the usage of punitive "justice",  and instead I am very much in agreement that restorative justice is a much much more effective,  efficient and healthier form of justice and guidelines for communities and societies and such,  and an alternative to punitive  "justice"  (and yes this is the main reason why I have never pressed charges or legally sued anyone or any company or business through a court system throughout my life)

just joking

just joking

What about for a rapist?

Just joking

Just joking

Yesterday, Bill Maher did a segment on what I'm talking about!

Tryptamine said: 

I've been talking about the seemingly limitless liberal push for acceptance

Then we aren't having a conversation over anything real.  In spite of how right wing media makes it look, I have yet to find a leftist in person who is truly pushing for acceptance beyond key demographics or with clauses based on circumstances. 

To me, it makes sense that the LGBTQ would have rights, it makes sense that races and genders would have equal opportunity and be sympathized for their struggles that we might not have to go through ourselves, and it makes sense to me that those who didn't have to grow up with as many uphill battles might not be as prepared to feel ostracized after a history of feeling like they were a part of the in-group. 

, and that absolutely includes the trans movement, body positivity, and MAP advocacy. You're taking umbrage with the last item as if it means these are all as serious as one-another, though I said I wasn't trying to draw equivalencies.

It'd seem you are, you've moved the subject away from weight and broadened it towards pedo-minded whataboutisms as if it's related over having a similar solution in your mind towards fixing it (shaming people). 

You think it's unfair that I've included something that people would broadly find distasteful among things that you would support. You're making my point for me with that: The push for acceptance has marched on unimpeded, only to stop where people reach their limits with it. On this point I'm not seeing how anyone can argue otherwise.

The underlined portion is correct, and the majority of the left would as well. I really don't see how it's "unimpeded", rather than a series of lines, of degrees being drawn. Without gay rights becoming acceptable through focusing solely on that for example the trans movement would have not had nearly as much steam over past precedent. If it's lumped into one giant sum then nothing gets done, while tackling each issue individually allows for incremental progress. 

The closest to sympathy expressed towards pedophiles for example is moreover questioning how much those urges are or aren't in their control, and if there was a pill to suppress those urges you can bet they'd want that shit made mandatory. 


So is it limitless acceptance as you said at the beginning of this section, or is it acceptance up to a point? You've claimed in this span of text that it's seemingly both. Unlike what you've said thus far, I see a lot of weight between the lines drawn, rather than lump them all under one banner to the point of car marriage and rape. 

These are all treated as part of one equation, specifically one meant to solve for the most equitable society that presupposes all backgrounds and cultures and idiosyncrasies are equally valid.

The ones in this mindset aren't as prone to lumping people together as much as the privileged outsiders are prone to.

What do you mean by this?

The right is prone to lumping progressive ideals in with deviancy, a single umbrella with the same stink as those guys saying two men marrying is the same as marrying their dog, or their car, or saying that their gender is a helicopter. The left by comparison tries to differentiate between each group more with a sympathy that has them become aggressive towards those trying to fall into the "Appeal to Tradition" fallacy. 

Both sides see the other as being intolerant over being disagreed with and then strawmanned into caricatures, and they find it easier to blow off steam at their peers who can vote rather than those who actually say the things that got people riled up in the first place, or towards those with actual power. Neither side feels like they have the room to communicate, which in turn makes them defensive as they find themselves falling deeper into the very party lines that caused this separation in the first place. It's become two insulated groups, and the only way to build a bridge is to see where the common lines are, like not accepting pedophilia for example, even if the two sides may still argue between if it's sick deviancy or a mental condition. 

The right is prone to trying to argue "we are all the same, they have the same chances that we do and simply aren't fit for the job, so lets not change things", while the left is prone to trying to argue "we are all the same, so why aren't they/we being given the same opportunities?". The left has outright been called racist by the right for example over how they say "black people need more help" through racial quotas, when the issue is moreover how imbalanced things already are from our history granting people different vantage points. 

In a right wing perspective they'd presume black people aren't being hired for the same reason a white person might not be hired as if they were coming at it from the same situation, allowing them to presume black people must just not be working as hard or must not be as smart over going with the idea that they are going at it from a similar enough background. In a left wing perspective, it's these presumptions that are keeping other races from being as commonly hired, which in turn keeps their socioeconomic bracket lower overall and stops the potential for them to catch up over their history. 


In a similar light, tying this back in with the original topic of weight, a right wing person would be more likely to say "stop eating so many burgers and run around the block a few times" as if to target them being lazy, while the left would instead argue that it's the quality of their food, the state of their thyroid, a byproduct of their emotional state, or a myriad of other possible causes rather than immediately assuming they are starting from the same vantage point as their own POV. 


TLDR; The right generalizes into broader groups, while the left subdivides everything down into very tiny pieces. 

Like what, do you expect the leftist agenda is just... fine with pedo-shit just because some people within the movement aim to try to tie them together? Come on now.

These are all treated as part of one equation, specifically one meant to solve for the most equitable society that presupposes all backgrounds and cultures and idiosyncrasies are equally valid. And that way of considering things has been so deeply ingrained by education and media that it is often assumed a priori. Only now that policy has followed this way of thinking in perpetuity, has the contrast start to become clearly defined between what people wish to see in society, and what society becomes on this path.

In other words, slippery slope + gay agenda = pedophilia and clown world. 

Seriously dude, there's way more degrees between things. The squeaky wheel is just a tool, not life. Despite the position of unrelatability you find yourself in, it is not sensible to lump all these groups together just because they are unlike you. 

Well I wouldn't lump in pedophilia with that, but the clown world seems in full-effect. Again, my framing isn't "liberal  = MAP advocate".

Then why have you done so in this conversation as if it has weight on the weight problem? 

Fat acceptance is far more realistic, and it's absurd to even pair these subjects together unless you're making a point as baseline as "Well, I find it gross". 

 It's interesting that you brought up school shooters here. You're using that as an example to point out, "here is this group that is obviously bad, but we can't just punish everyone over a few people".

I'd use a word closer to "troubled", as I sympathize with the shooters and wish they could have got the help they needed. 

That being said, you can't look at all children as the same as those school shooters, just how you can't look at someone who crossdresses as if they're rapey or pedophilic just because a few saw quote unquote "opportunity" to go into another bathroom, or because a few random teachers proved to be bad people, or because people dressed like something between Divine and Rocky Horror to read children some stories. 

The majority of the left also has a distaste against deviancy, but they draw the line at a different spot. The difference here is that a leftist would (typically) not presume that the majority of trans people are going to do the things being reported about while looking at it with skepticism versus the perceived exaggerations, while the right will (typically) judge someone for choosing to be part of a group as if each member were equally responsible for the acts of a few within it as if the party's going to follow it ala bandwagon. 

The left sees these as exceptions that need to be sorted through, while the right sees it like extremists are whistleblowing what the rest will then "realize" they are permitted to do. Again this is just like what gay people had to go through to become as accepted as they are now, except over gender identity rather than gender attraction. 


To compare it from the other side to express the absurdity, it'd be like saying straight people are rapists and murderers as a whole over how enough of them have taken advantage of their place in society. If you were to look at history as a whole, I'd bet there's more straight rapists and murderers than there are trans and gay ones, so should we just... not trust straight people anymore..? Or even further, should we assume that straight people accept these behaviors from other straight people, or that continuing to be straight will mean that they eventually will act identically? 

Aside from the trans movement and the school shooting phenomena both having the same root problems of a severely deficient mental health system (and an equally deficient society), these are problems that have room for serious answers.

One of them kills people, the other one dresses up, and the solutions to each have little to nothing in common with eachother. 

Trans people have been around before now, the move towards dressing in drag dates back to the 1800s within US culture while popularizing noticeably in the 1960s. It's also present in other cultures as well, each with their own rich and differing history, showing both time and region to not be related to "the problem". 


This is fundamentally different from the US's weight problem, where someone can move to another country and watch themselves become thinner while not changing their habits at all. 

It shouldn't matter that the things which you bullet-pointed are not the everyday experience of all women.

Do you not see how this is used to presume the majority of people who fall under those labels must be the same, rather than splitting where they differ? 

It's bringing up a few cases under exaggeration, some of which didn't even happen, to make the entire movement look as deviant as a few people so that the entire thing can be struck down. 

It's like saying people shouldn't be gay, and that they should not have rights, because aids exists and a few might have diddled children of the same gender. 

Each thing needs to be handled as a separate issue, rather than lumping it under one set of clown makeup. When it's all put together it makes resolving conflicts seem hopeless, while when broken apart into smaller chunks it can begin to go towards something less sensationalist and more realistic.