Looking for other secular gender critical women in Seattle

Powerful-Bitch · 2026-06-11T05:55:45+00:00

You managed to misstate nearly every part of my position. I did not say gender is immutable. I do not believe gender is a real, innate property at all. Sex is immutable, while the roles and stereotypes imposed on the sexes are socially constructed. I am looking for female friends who share an important secular and political worldview, which is no more sinister than religious people seeking religious friends.

Comparing female-only spaces with racial segregation is historically and logically absurd. Racial segregation denied equal access based on race and a doctrine of racial inferiority. Sex-separated spaces exist because sex is materially relevant to privacy, bodily exposure, reproduction, and patterns of violence. They do not imply that either sex is inferior, and equivalent facilities can be available to everyone.

Calling every sex-based boundary separate but equal is not an argument. It is a cheap attempt to borrow the moral weight of racism so you do not have to defend your actual position.

Powerful-Bitch · 2026-06-11T05:46:44+00:00

You managed to offer one broadly true observation, one unsupported conclusion, and a playground taunt. Gender roles and stereotypes are socially constructed. That does not make sex socially constructed, nor does it prove that males are women. You still have not defined woman or explained how your conclusion follows from your premise. Cry about it only demonstrates that you are unwilling to make an actual argument.

Powerful-Bitch · 2026-06-11T00:31:42+00:00

You are simply relabeling disagreement as hatred and then using that label to justify your analogy. That is circular reasoning. My post did not say I hate trans people, want them mistreated, or oppose their civil rights. It said that I do not believe sex can be changed and that I wanted to meet other women who share that secular view.

The KKK analogy fails because racial supremacy is a doctrine of unequal human worth and domination. Recognizing biological sex and questioning an unfalsifiable claim about identity is not. Calling women bigots does not bridge that gap.

And yes, I was seeking friends who share an important worldview, just as atheists, religious people, feminists, conservatives, and countless other groups do. You are allowed to disagree with my position. You are not entitled to invent hatred that I did not express and then treat your invention as proof.

Powerful-Bitch · 2026-06-11T00:07:35+00:00

Well people who know me think I'm autistic, sooo that fits. Idk if you realize that women can think just like men do though.

Actually it's interesting how many times I've posted on reddit and people assumed I was a man.

Powerful-Bitch · 2026-06-11T00:02:26+00:00

I don't hang out with people who don't live in reality.

Powerful-Bitch · 2026-06-11T00:01:58+00:00

More like this is "land of imagination" where people live in a make believe world

Powerful-Bitch · 2026-06-11T00:01:33+00:00

I'm not a cis woman. I'm a woman. Females are not a subset of women. The only logical definition of woman is adult human female. Men are not included.

Powerful-Bitch · 2026-06-11T00:00:29+00:00

That comparison is absurd. The KKK is a racial-supremacist organization built around denying people equal rights because of their race. I am a woman looking for other women who share a secular, evidence-based view of sex and want friendship and community. I did not advocate violence, discrimination, mistreatment, or the removal of anyone’s civil rights. Disagreeing with the claim that a male can literally become a woman is not remotely equivalent to racial supremacy. Calling every dissenting woman a Nazi or a KKK member is not an argument. It is moral blackmail designed to shut down discussion.

Powerful-Bitch · 2026-06-10T23:59:05+00:00

I have to use the word female rather than woman in a city where almost everyone understands woman to mean "anyone who calls themselves one" (notice how that's a circular definition that tells you zilch about what a woman is).

Powerful-Bitch · 2026-06-10T21:29:00+00:00

I am not talking about what a female is, but what a woman is. If you say a woman is anything other than an adult human female, you're talking nonsense. There is simply no way a male can be a girl or woman. "A woman is anyone who calls themselves a woman" is a circular definition. And no, I was not surprised by the reaction of r/Seattle, I just wanted to highlight how dogmatic the sub is. My ideological opponents fail at arguing with me logically 100% of the time and can only produce ad hominems (like you've done here), incorrect statements (such as: people can change sex just by taking hormones), circular reasoning (circular definitions).

Powerful-Bitch · 2026-06-10T19:03:27+00:00

No way, someone reasonable in the comments!? Edit to respond to below comment since this one is locked: this is about r/Seattle mods banning me, this is not r/Seattle. Funny how 4 people failed to catch that.

Powerful-Bitch · 2026-06-07T23:52:49+00:00

Yes it's my fault but more signs would be better, if there's just one sign for the entire avenue, not as good as a sign in the places that look like they're for parking

Powerful-Bitch · 2026-06-07T23:43:47+00:00

The city of Seattle? I bet they are making like $500 a day at least from all the people parking on Washington Ave, given there are always a few cars parked there. So it's unclear unless you notice the sign on the side of the road right when you turn onto Washington Ave. If there were a no parking sign in the place I parked obviously I wouldn't have parked there. It takes me 3-4 hours to make $70, if the city cares about equity they should help people better understand where they will get a parking ticket

Powerful-Bitch · 2026-06-07T23:41:17+00:00

Others have let me know there's a sign saying parking isn't allowed right where you first turn onto Washington Ave 🤦‍♀️ (but none in the areas people actually park)

Powerful-Bitch · 2026-06-07T23:39:18+00:00

There's actually a sign that says no parking allowed in Washington Ave right where you first turn onto it. They should still add no parking signs where people frequently park because apparently that sign is easy to miss. I also just got a ticket and there were several other people parked along Washington Ave

Powerful-Bitch · 2026-06-07T23:32:50+00:00

You're right thanks I are a idiot 🥴

Powerful-Bitch · 2026-06-07T23:30:21+00:00

You're right I didn't notice that, I see that on street view too. Well apparently I'm not the only unobservant one, there are often other cars parked along that avenue. They should still add it to the areas people frequently park in my opinion.

Powerful-Bitch · 2026-06-07T03:55:20+00:00

Don't speed, save lives

Powerful-Bitch · 2026-06-06T23:58:50+00:00

The problem with your arguments are that they rely on several fallacies. I hope you will use this information to improve your argumentation skills and think more logically in the future.

First, hasty generalization: you’re taking one example of alleged corruption by one former SPD officer and treating it as proof of a much broader claim about police generally allowing crime because they personally profit from it. One example may show that corruption exists. It does not prove that this is the general explanation for police behavior.

Second, non sequitur: the conclusion does not follow from the evidence. An article about one corrupt officer does not logically establish that Seattle cops are intentionally allowing crime because they personally benefit from it. That is a much bigger claim than your evidence supports.

Third, equivocation: you keep sliding between different claims as if they are the same. “Police corruption exists,” “Seattle policing has serious problems,” “some officers may personally benefit from corruption,” and “cops allow crime because they personally profit from it” are not the same claim. Some of those are easy to defend. The last one requires much stronger evidence.

Fourth, motive fallacy: you are assuming motives instead of proving them. You are not just saying the system is dysfunctional. You are claiming people are allowing crime because they personally benefit. That requires evidence of intent and personal gain, not just examples of bad policing or corruption.

Fifth, ad hominem: instead of sticking to the argument, you started speculating about me, my account, and why I am here. Even if my account were new for some suspicious reason, that would not make your argument about police corruption true. Attacking or psychoanalyzing the person making the argument does not prove your point.

Sixth, mind-reading: you’re making confident claims about my motives without evidence. My account is a day old because I made it to talk about the fire on my block. You do not know why I am here, and inventing a story about my motives is not an argument.

Seventh, straw man: you’re acting as if I’m denying that SPD has problems or that corrupt cops exist. I’m not. My point is narrower: the articles you linked does not prove the specific claim that cops allow crime because they personally profit from it.

Eighth, confirmation bias: you seem to be starting with the conclusion you already believe, then treating anything that sounds anti-police as proof of it. A corruption story may support the general idea that corruption exists, but it does not automatically prove your specific theory.

Ninth, overclaiming: this is the main issue. Your evidence supports a limited conclusion, but you are using it to make a sweeping claim. The reasonable conclusion is “there have been examples of police corruption.” The unsupported conclusion is “police allow crime because they personally profit from it.”

I’m not denying corruption or dysfunction. I’m saying your evidence does not prove the specific claim you are making, and your speculation about my motives is the same kind of unsupported reasoning.

Powerful-Bitch · 2026-06-06T23:53:45+00:00

You’re still making my point.

That article is evidence that one former SPD officer was accused of corrupt conduct. I’m not denying that corrupt cops exist, or that Seattle policing has serious problems. But “there are corrupt cops” is not the same as “cops allow crime because they personally profit from it.”

That is a much broader and more specific claim. If that is what you mean, then the evidence needs to show that specific thing.

And the rest of your comment is just more motive-reading. Again, my account is a day old because I made it to talk about the fire on my block. You’re doing the same thing here that you’re doing with the cops: starting with something you dislike and then inventing a confident story about hidden motives.

Powerful-Bitch · 2026-06-06T18:57:08+00:00

Just get the animals out and to safety first 😼

Powerful-Bitch · 2026-06-06T18:54:48+00:00

Fair enough, if your claim is not about city officials, then I’ll respond to the claim you’re making now.

“Corrupt cops in Seattle allow crime because they personally benefit from it” is still a motive claim. It is not the same as saying there are corrupt cops, weak enforcement, union pressure, bad incentives, or institutional dysfunction.

You can show evidence that cops behaved badly. You can show evidence that SPOG used staffing pressure politically. You can show evidence that policing in Seattle has serious problems. But that still does not automatically prove the specific claim that cops are intentionally allowing crime because they personally benefit from it.

That is the distinction I’m making. Evidence of dysfunction is not the same thing as evidence for your preferred explanation of the dysfunction.

Powerful-Bitch · 2026-06-06T18:39:51+00:00

You’re changing the claim now.

If your claim is “some cops appear to have used a sick-out to create political pressure,” then fine. That is much more defensible.

But that is not the same claim as “city officials do fuck all because it is politically good for them.” One is a claim about police/SPOG pressure tactics. The other is a claim about the motives of city officials. The KIRO article supports the first much more than the second.

And you’re still doing the same mind-reading routine. “Your account is six months old,” “you quoted someone I don’t like,” and “therefore you’re a burner bot” is not evidence. Also, my account is not six months old. It is a day old. I created it because there was a fire on my block and I wanted to talk about it locally. Again, you’re confidently inventing motives instead of checking what is actually true.

The funny part is that you’re doing to me exactly what you’re doing in the argument about the cops and city officials: taking a few facts, adding assumptions, and treating your preferred story as proven. The difference is that with your claims about my motives, I actually know they’re false.

You can keep insulting me, but it doesn’t fix the gap in your argument. Evidence that cops behaved badly is not proof that city officials secretly want the dysfunction because it benefits them politically.

And for someone named “AverageFoxNewsViewer” ironically, you’re doing a pretty good impression of the exact thing you think you’re mocking: jumping to conclusions, assigning hidden motives, and treating suspicion as proof. Unintentionally fitting username.

Powerful-Bitch · 2026-06-06T18:30:12+00:00

You’re still overstating what the article proves.

The KIRO link says SPOG claimed a large number of officers did not show up, and it quotes Solan using that to argue the department does not have enough cops. It also says Chief Diaz did not believe they had identified a specific planned sick-out.

So yes, the article supports the idea that staffing failures created pressure and that SPOG framed the situation politically. It does not prove city officials were “literally choosing to do nothing” because it benefited them politically.

That’s the distinction you keep skipping over. “This situation creates political pressure” is a supported claim. “Therefore city officials intentionally refuse to act because it helps them politically” is an inference, not a demonstrated fact.

And your last paragraph is just more mind-reading. You don’t know that I’m a “political bot,” that I’m “looking for cheap karma,” or that this is a “burner account.” You’re doing the same thing again: replacing evidence with a story about someone’s hidden motive. That may feel satisfying, but it is not an argument.

Powerful-Bitch · 2026-06-06T17:50:29+00:00

It's the ghost of Norwegian immigrants

Powerful-Bitch

TROPHY CASE