The so-called " motte-and-bailey fallacy " is, essentially, an argumentative tactic that tries to defend an objectionable position by presenting an extremely simplistic more agreeable version of it whenever it's being criticized. In a way, it's a sort of "reverse straw-man" argument: In other words, it's like a normal "straw-man argument" except that instead of the argument being simplified in order to attack, discredit or mock it, it's simplified in the opposite direction in order to try to make it sound more acceptable and agreeable. One of the most perfect examples of this is feminism. Well, at least it was until about 5 or so years ago, give or take, as pure straight feminism has fallen out of fashion from the far left, as the "trans" ideology superseded it and, especially, when famous big-name radical feminists came out to oppose the invasion of women's spaces by "trans" people. In this example I'm talking a...