Julie Bindel has been labelled a transphobe (like anybody who criticizes them at all), but she describes herself as a "political lesbian". Essentially that she became a lesbian by choice even though she is presumably naturally heterosexual. This seems to me like feminists laying the foundations for "transbian" claims later down the road.

Julie is female so how would she lay the 'transbian' foundations? The point is that men cannot be lesbians because they're not female. There are lots of women who are bi or who don't like heterosexuality. Julie Bindel's bisexuality didn't lay any foundation for men to claim they're lesbians.

Feminists infamously were quite antithetical towards empirical knowledge production in academia during the "Science Wars" of the 80's and 90's. Falsification and objectivity were attacked for being oppressive masculine constructs that devalued feminine "other ways of knowing".

There ARE other ways of knowing things. This is why we have all sorts of maxims in English. There is a lot to be said for experience and wisdom. This doesn't mean that men can change sex. Blaming feminism for a bunch of fetishistic men who want to their fantasies to be validated is a stretch.

3: Similar to the above point, lots of postmodern drivel was written back in the day (and still is https://bit.ly/3gUMedS) about how all sorts of words and concepts were offensive to women for very esoteric reasons. Such as the word "history" being problematic because it implies that history is masculine, etc. This sort of symbolic word-policing is the same sort of behaviour as trans people obsessively complaining if an innocuous document fails to acknowledge their existence.

I've noticed that you're claiming that there is this ONE feminism. There are several feminisms. You are speaking of neoliberal feminism, which is an oxymoron to be sure. Feminists rightly saw that women, by the fact they were female, were kept out of mostly everything, especially academia and the sciences. History is written by the victors. I'm sure you've heard that right? Well, it's true. Women and girls were kept out of even contemplating what history is because they were kept out of the very professions that would construct it. This has nothing to do with a bunch of fetishistic males wanting their fantasies validated at the expense of women and girls.

So them saying something like, "some women have penises, so your guide on women's health is offensive because it only mentions vaginas", is categorically the same as declaring that the word history is offensive because it (allegedly) implies history is about men and not women. The allegation here is that you started it.

No, it's not even remotely the same thing. History IS about men, as per the reasons I stated above. Women have their own knowledge, which had to be carefully passed down mother to daughter. There are no books about it. It's mostly all oral. The reason it is such is once again, women were kept out of any arena that would give them access to record it.

4: The concept of patriarchy, as it has been used in practice by many feminists, often appears to be a conspiracy theory. The notion that men are all in on a devious plot to oppress women, rather than women's oppression simply having been the historical product of material forces (including biological differences). The intemperate and intolerant behaviour of the transgenderists towards gender critical women is easily matched by the rhetoric of the likes of the late Dworkin towards men in general.

So you deny that women were forcibly kept out of academia, professions? You do know women couldn't get a patent? Do you realize what keeping women out has done to us? You act as if women were happily participating in the society without a single hitch. And you know what you write isn't true and has absolutely nothing to do with a bunch of men demanding to erase us and take away what little we have gained, like Title IX for example.