Hail the Tripod

I don't disagree at all. I think feminism has been largely malignant in effect, and particularly corrosive to the stable, nuclear family. I just don't think you'll get people to change their perception of the impact of feminism with sloppy arguments and gross exaggeration. In fact, it's probably counterproductive to challenge orthodox opinion with easily such dismissed contentions.

Nope, still can't see it. Doesn't mention the impact of increases in productivity and the consequent decrease in prices at all. In fact, the part I bolded implicitly denies that even as a theoretical possibility.

She "did the math" wrong. It assumes that all the women in the workforce provide no additional productivity. While the main points are all somewhat loosely based in reality, it combines into a confused mess.

Exploitative domestic helper visa systems in Korea, Japan and Hong Kong that take advantage of women from poor countries is not an issue for first world feminists, because they're the principle beneficiaries.

I think these things have become so self-parodying that to a certain degree the youngest generation find it all hilarious. It appears that boy's jocular type peer group pressure has gone from being embodied by: "Hahaha, you're so gay!" to: "You know we'll support you if you decide you're a transexual, right?" (in a mock solicitous voice) Is that progress?

There are people who even though genetically they are standard XY they present as women because, either their bodies failed to produce testosterone, or failed to react to it's presence. It's rare but it happens.

The first one is not a legal principle just an example of institutional misandry. The second point is entirely correct. There is also the area of professional sports, where sexual discrimination is still rigidly enforced. There's also state pension age, and arguably insurance costs. Any others?

I was wondering what differences there are left in terms of specific rights and obligations.

In what way does your legal status change by virtue of being a "woman"? I'm all for adults being entitled to do what they want with their "gender identity", and free from malicious interference from others. This whole push for the right to legally bully other people into pretending that their fantasy is unquestionable reality is deeply wrong.

Steve Hughes.

No, I don't think that's the case at all. I expect most on here* are perfectly happy for transgender people to have rights just like anyone else. Where it falls down is when activists, who by and large are not transgender themselves, start demanding we deny biological reality. Obviously people should be protected from any unwarranted collective persecution, but the reform agenda has moved so far beyond that. * Except Errol who would send them to a gulag in Siberia.

They're gonna need to build a lot more women's prisons as this becomes orthodoxy.

The prize money for winning the women's singles at Wimbledon is a cool £2million. If you were 220th best male player in the world and struggling to make ends meet on the tour, it would be pretty tempting to just compete as a woman for one year, win a few grand slams and retire with your rightful riches. And you would be pretty much guaranteed to win any event you entered as a woman (at least until other men catch on) in fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)#1998:_Karsten_Braasch_vs._the_Williams_sisters

No he explicitly states "very young boys", and then says again "very young" with a heavy emphasis and the clear implication that he had no doubt they were obviously below the age of consent. I like him, he's funny and he makes some important points. It doesn't mean you have to go into denial when he's caught spouting ********.

It's a three hour interview, he said lots of things. He was pretty emphatic that he'd been to Hollywood parties where very young boys were present with a clear and unambiguous implication of sexual abuse. He refused to name the hosts. If true he clearly thinks it's OK to shield people who were at the least facilitating child abuse. He still refuses to name the hosts of the supposed parties. My assumption is he wasn't invited to Hollywood parties before he was famous, and was just making it up as he went along. He'd rather take accusations of shielding child molesters on the chin than admitting he was bullshitting.