Feminism, the perfect example of motte-and-bailey

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years ago, give or take, as pure straight feminism has fallen out of fashion from the far left, as the "trans" ideology superseded it and, especially, when famous big-name radical feminists came out to oppose the invasion of women's spaces by "trans" people.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 about the feminism of 5+ years ago, the one that was fully espoused by the far left and by many prominent people (perhaps most infamously by the likes of Justin Trudeau).

Back then what's currently named "DEI" was just called "feminism", without many differences: The hatred of men and discrimination against them (eg. in hiring), the constant attacks on men, the attacks on free speech, the full-on "cancel culture". For the longest time the normalization of physical violence was not yet as strong and prevalent as it is today, but it was getting there, with extremely aggressive "protests" (sometimes even escalating to harassment, destruction of property and arson). These were the infamous years of all the high-profile false rape accusations, especially in universities, some of which even got press coverage (especially in leftist feminist publications). These were the infamous years of extremist activism in university campuses, were anybody who showed even the slightest amount of dissent were subject to absolutely massive harassment campaigns and were discriminated against even by university staff and professors. These were the infamous years when university students outright occupied and hijacked the buildings and the outside of university buildings, in some cases to the extent of outright borderline kidnapping university staff (I'm not even making that up.)

Back then "feminism" was not a dirty word among the left, but on the contrary it was fully embraced by them and fiercely defended. Like with so many others of their concepts, it was 100% a black-or-white situation: Either you declared yourself a feminist, or you were a monster. There was no middle ground. (Not much has changed compared to today, although today there isn't one single word you have to adopt and describe yourself as, it's merely a question of whether you accept 100% of what the far-leftist doctrine happens to be this particular week or not: Either you accept and promote it 100%, or you are a "fascist" and a "nazi". There are no other options.)

So yes, "feminism" carried all that baggage: If you were a "feminist" you also had to support all of that. You had to support the discrimination, the "cancel culture", the protests, the erosion of free speech... everything.

That's the "bailey". In other words, the larger set of positions you had to hold if you were a "feminist".

Yet, if you were asked if you were a "feminist" and you answered with "no", the argument immediately retreated to the "bailey": "Oh, so you don't support women's rights?"

That was literally and explicitly the argument: If you accept and embrace "feminism" you had to accept the enormous amount of extra baggage and extra doctrine that came bundled with it. But criticize feminism, claim that "feminism has gone too far"? Suddenly feminism is just about women's rights, and that's it, nothing else. If you oppose feminism, if you think that "feminism has gone too far", then you oppose women's rights.

That was literally their argument, especially 5+ years ago.

It's the perfect example of motte-and-bailey argumentation.