>>67643765Twinks and effeminate men, first of all, aren't the same thing. Especially since this is all on a spectrum. Second of all, what fucking source do you have that "women who aren't femcels don't like effeminate men"? This argument of yours holds multiple logical fallacies. I won't go for obvious ones like hasty generalization and anecdotal evidence since while they're likely you don't necessarily display them outright, but your argument clearly displays the following:
begging the claim - the conclusion you should prove is already validated in your claim, "Women who are not femcels don't like effeminate men" is something you need proof of but you are using "who are femcels" as proof, which also ties into the circular argument fallacy and the either/or fallacy where you assume the only options are "she is either young and thus likes twinks, or is not young and therefore doesn't like twinks (in general)"
Ad populum/bandwagon appeal - the majority think this therefore you should too, plus the no true scotsman fallacy, in this case "no TRUE woman would like effeminate men", which implies a degree of necessity for purity which can also be used as a type of red herring because it avoids the key issue of "do women like twinks" and changes the argument to "what type of women do/n't like twinks" which you then answer
Definist fallacy - defining a term in an argument in a biased manner, assuming people will agree and not be able to refute as easily. "twinks are effeminate men" (you are also purposefully vague here which allows for equivocation and definitional retreat, changing the meaning of a word retroactively because you didn't initially define EXACTLY what the word meant as it has multiple meanings - here, "effeminate", which is a descriptor which encompasses a spectrum, you could be a lumberjack and wear kitty headphones and thus be effeminate or you could be unmistakable from a woman at first glance, or anywhere in between which could also lead to persuasive definition)
Fallacy of composition - assuming that something true of a part must be true for the whole (simple example, tires are rubber therefore cars are rubber, here, "these specific women" don't like effeminate men therefore all women don't like effeminate men)
Psychologist's fallacy - assuming your own objectivity when analyzing behavioral events (these people like twinks therefore they are girls [immature] and these don't so they must be women [mature] and sexually active"
Thought-terminating cliche - using commonly used phrases or folk wisdom, sayings and such to immediately stop the debate with a cliche and not a point - "Close the window" "but it's hot" "the draft can kill you, don't you know?", here, "Women don't like twinks because only femcels like effeminate men, don't you know?"
Ignoratio elenchi (missing the point, irrelevant conclusion) - an argument that may or may not be true but does not actually address the issue. Original issue; "Women generally like twinks", irrelevant conclusion; "Women who are not femcels don't like effeminate men" aka "Femcels like twinks" - femcels, among other issues here, are still women
Appeal to emotion, judgemental language - using insults or pejorative language as an argument "Women who aren't FEMCELS (yuck!) don't like effeminate men"
Now, there is such a thing as the "fallacy fallacy" that means assuming someone is wrong just because their logic is shit, but I'm not making this list to prove you wrong, I'm making it to say that I think you're an idiot and I won't argue with you because I have reason to suspect you won't make an honest effort to discuss the topic properly and will simply list your biases as fact
