> The latter seams to be what actually defines feminism, is very vocal and is the one that comes up whenever you hear about feminism, while the former seams to only come up when you start to argue against the latter kind.
This linguistic game is basically the core defining feature of progressivism as practiced: one can hold a term in linguistic ambiguity and choose, post-hoc, whichever one is most convenient for them to assume at the time (which may be a completely different definition from the one they operated under yesterday).
This way you can have your cake and eat it too by advancing radical feminist ideology at the bailey before retreating to the motte of what you call common sense.
This linguistic game is basically the core defining feature of progressivism as practiced: one can hold a term in linguistic ambiguity and choose, post-hoc, whichever one is most convenient for them to assume at the time (which may be a completely different definition from the one they operated under yesterday).
This way you can have your cake and eat it too by advancing radical feminist ideology at the bailey before retreating to the motte of what you call common sense.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy