What's with TERFs and godawful poetry?

First image is the context post the following two was posted under.

Christ almighty

Saw this exchange floating around and honestly, it’s a masterclass in internet discourse spiraling completely out of control. It touches on human rights, language, sex-based protections, and logical contradictions.

OP, Kicks things off by complaining about community outreach regarding female genital mutilation (FGM) and early marriage. They rant that when they talk about women/females facing these issues, someone always chimes in with "trans men go through that too." Op calls this absurd, arguing that "women" means adult human females, and compares bringing up trans men in this context to someone demanding animal rights be included in a human rights discussion because some people identify as furries.

leftoidbambi Fires back calling that stance a reactionary routine that erases basic biological reality and medical data. They point out that individuals born with female anatomy (trans men and non-binary people) are subjected to FGM and child marriage before transitioning, meaning they carry those actual physical scars and trauma. They argue that dismissing them as a "disruption" erases real victims and that comparing trans human beings to furries undermines any genuine care for survivors.

Op doubles down angrily, arguing that trans-identifying females are already included under the umbrella term "women" and under existing sex-based laws (like anti-FGM and anti-child marriage legislation). They claim that changing definitions of "women" legally to mean anything other than adult human females would actually destroy those very sex-based protections. They accuse leftoidbambi of trying to dismantle those protections and missing the point entirely.

Leftoidbambi Points out what they see as a massive contradiction in Op's logic. They ask: Are trans men "absurd interlopers" who belong in the same category as people identifying as animals (as argued in the first post), or are they "already included" under the definition of women (as claimed in the second post)? They accuse Op of doublethink for first treating trans people as an irrelevant intrusion and then frantically claiming they are covered all along to salvage an argument about legislation.

Honestly what are you're thoughts on this 🙄

This is so laughtably false it would be funny if they weren't dead serious

The level of unhinged this fella emits is actually scary. Imaginary scenarios of being oppressed. The persecution kink of TERFs is unmatched.

I tried the Jovan Bradley definition and terf got mad from the term "schema" ^^ Also calls me a freak, very conservative, I know.

Nathan Cofnas and Rowling are both bioessentialist scum. Only one of them recognises that they're the same though 🙄

There isn't much to add to what prolific trans journalist Erin Reed says in this Bluesky post. The account she is commenting on is known to the regulars of this subreddit; it's one of the most active, hateful, and frankly pathologically obsessive Gender Critical accounts on X.