to the feminist philosoph language is never casual. important distinctions are specifically drawn for clarity and to dispell possible misunderstanding, misconstruction of ideological concepts.

i am pleased to read accounts of men struggling with these important feminist topic points -however they have come to this thinking and as whatever they choose to self-identify, but make no mistake, men and males can never be the arbiters of any sort of feminism...

lovely to see the concept as 'gotten.'
and as a fan of high and common theory--whether feminist or in general--i feel compelled to make points on language and theory as construction and concept changes and loses meaning when rephrased casually.

"people for civil rights" sounds good to me...as it blankets equally if broadly.

"I am of the opinion "people for civil rights" is a good description."

but it's not just about rights, or about behaviors that are coded as "civil." this term is great for some situations, but too cold for my taste. feminism is more about weighing relevant variables of gender and sex and sexual orientation and advocating for irrelevant usages of such concepts to take a hike, whether it's in the civil arena, in law, or in personal relationships or awakening.