ceterum censeo egestatem ubicumque esse delendam

Yes, I disagree with some elements of Scott’s post. I think his critiques of how sj is toxic and uses bad argumentative techniques are right on, but I think his analysis of the factual claims of SJ groups is ignoring the best evidence for their case, that it is totally possible to put all the stuff SJ people like going LA LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU about within an SJ framework and in general that post was disappointingly uncharitable to SJ’s positive claims (as opposed to its argumentative techniques, which do suck). 

The concept of female privilege is, AFAICT, looking at the disadvantages gender-non-conforming men face, noticing that women with similar traits don’t face those disadvantages, and concluding that this is because women are advantaged in society. In addition, it is also taking things like benevolent sexism— where people endorse pedestalizing and condescending ‘positive’ viewpoints of women— and concluding that this is also an advantage that women have. Neither of those things, I think, is a useful way of understanding sexism.

aaaaand I should be writing fanfic