misogynistic, rather than just labeling them so and expecting others to piece the definition together post-hoc. I certainly agree, but, again, I see the "you're calling me a mean name!" meme applied to basically deny us the vocabulary necessary to discuss this stuff at all. If one is dealing with someone arguing in good-faith, then certainly it's worth the time to undertake an explanation. I just also expect that were you to convince everyone to stop calling anyone "a misogynist", then the people who are responding negatively to the label would simply switch to responding negatively to the labeling of their behaviors/ideas as misogynist, at which point we'd need to come up with another vocabulary, repeat ad infinitum. I decided it was a better use of my time to try to convince people to stop internalizing descriptors as essential identities. I think I have been misrepresented here. I am not saying that we should do it to spare the feelings of people who have misogynistic positions. I am saying that we should do it because it orients our attention and focus to the BEHAVIOURS, rather than conflating the messenger with the message. Racism, for example, can be perpetrated in the absence of any malice or indeed even the intervention of a human mind. Systems themselves, institutions, anything really, can have a racially disadvantageous posture. By making "racism" the fault of "racists", we excuse not only the behaviour of those things we fail to see, but indeed ourselves. My entire thesis