> There's a rinse and repeat pattern of denial, suiting narratives here.
Have... have you actually talked to a cross-section of feminists? Or do you just watch the kind of youtube videos about them where someone who failed out at the rest of their life now is a professional video-pauser?
If your exposure to actual feminist dialogues is quite sparse if you think Jeong hasn't faced substantial criticism. Her comments were pointed out as crass (if not actually structurally racist; because they're not for multiple reasons) and alienating.
What's more, Jeong has a long running scandal of helping Vice totally screw over a Chinese woman who is a performative maker named Naomi Wu. The reporter there wanted to run a piece about Reddit conspiracy theories w.r.t. (that Naomi is actually, by virtue of being a woman, obviously backed by a man who is the "real" talent). Naomi's addressed this a lot and had a written contract she pointed to as violated.
Sarah jumped in and helped deplatform Wu off of a variety of platforms and lead a charge to get Wu thrown off Patreon, because she wanted to defend her friend against the accusations of a woman who was angry for being dismissed as a sex symbol and nothing more.
So yah, there is a lot of feminist critique of Jeong that's valid. She's also kinda shitty to sex workers even as she says she thinks it should be fine. That's unsurprising, most of us have shitty upbringings and part of the idea behind public feminist dialogue is to help people recognize that these unconscious biases need intentional correction to be stamped out.
If you make jokes about how "I don't recall hearing about this plan at the last global patriarchy council" you can also make that same joke about "feminism." It's a broad movement with many adherents and to try and collapse it to a single priority set is ridiculous. The movement is not a monolith.
> It happened with Sarah Jeong, where the feminists distorted the English meaning of the word 'Racism'
Maybe you should time travel back to 2012 when boys-club Youtube skeptics were busy losing this fight and walk through the video breadcrumbs of how this collapsed. There are multiple senses of the word racism and some are more facile than others. What's more, Jeong was ironically mimicking the tweets of someone else making racist comments.
There is no doubt this is crass. It's discriminatory, even! But racist? If so, it's only in the sense that it's often misused as a synonym for "discriminatory" when in fact racism encompass a lot more than that.
> It's happening now with this case, and it's not the last time. And just so you are aware, these narratives rely on the evisceration of science, logic, reason and well established definitions of words
It's curious then, how if science and logic are the pole stars of the anti-feminist movement then how often actual scientists, statisticians and historians are considered to be "the enemy." Academia itself is often vilified by narratives your pushing, and the definitions you're decrying don't emerge from tumblr, but rather decades of scholarly inquiry. Many aspects of modern feminist theory have rich histories in literature that can't be easily brushed off as modern abominations.
Your original complaint about "redefining the word racism" is actually a complaint about how Academia (including your reviled humanities, but also many more disciplines) have recognized that there are systemic, evidenced-based measures of how environments alter the effect and scope of people.
The fact that you're upset about Jeong's words means that you actually believe in so-called "feminist bullshit" like micro-aggressions. To which I say: congrats to you for independently recognizing this is a thing, now ask yourself how that applies to others.