>I'm interested to know how you think I'm defining feminism
Inconsistently, judging from your posts.
>[females] have rights over their bodies (something thus far denied to little girls)
>I defended it from those who called it 'the world's most dangerous terrorist movement'
A suffering GLer, offering heartfelt advice.
>from those who believed 'feminism', in its entirety, is the sole reason for our oppression.
Absent evidence, the usual feminist strawman.
>>'Feminists, claiming to be GLers or BLers, are not exactly rare.'
>No, they are not 'claiming' to be CLers, they are CLers, who also happen to believe in female autonomy.
If they defends anti-pedophilia, denies rights to little girls, and prefers adults or teenagers, I'd not call them CLers or believers in female autonomy - and neither did they!
>>'The issue lies in what we might call core feminism - the idea that feminists, traditionally old jealous women, should be in control of the sexual market.'
>I wouldn't call this 'core feminism' at all
19th century feminists, and their 20th and 21th century sisters, who all attacked various rights of girls and men would beg to differ.
This also clearly demonstrates contradictions within your proposed minimal feminism.
>>'Does the feminist hostility, relevant to your defense, go away when you fallaciously introduce non-feminist hostility?'
>No, because my sole point is that feminism is not the sole cause of our problems.
I did not claim feminism was, but that non-feminist hostility is not relevant here. You can't sell me a Ford by claiming a Toyota is bad (the Ford can be worse), but by showing the Ford is decent.