How to create a legend part 2: The Feminist Monolith

In my recent post "How to create a legend", I posted some tweets from Paula. S. Kirby and Russell Blackford, where they create the legend that "The Sisterhood of the Oppressed" (a very vaguely defined group, apparently) don't object to calling people "who disagree with their feminist dogma house-slaves" or, how Blackford called it "house negroes".
Timid Atheist pointed me towards something in the comments* that might have been the source of the claim, namely a comment by Taslima Nasreen on one of her posts on sex-work. If she meant that, it is in itself hilarious as an alleged example of the feminists monolith that does not allow for plurality, dissent and argument, because Taslima Nasreen's blog and her posts about prostitution and abortion are amongst the most controverse and discussed on FTB.
The post itself was very controversely discussed, with many voices disagreeing with Taslima Nasreen, challenging her for data, speaking their own experiences as sex-workers. So much for "dissent not being allowed".
Within the 305 comments, Taslima Nasreen answered one by an actual sex-worker and activist with this:

House slaves did not want the abolition of slavery because they were treated considerably better than field slaves. Would you say slavery should not have been abolished only because some privileged slaves wanted to remain as slaves?

 So, yes, Taslima Nasreen compared a woman who disagreed with her to a house slave, that part of Paula Kirby's statements is correct. What is a lie is that Taslima Nasreen's original position is "feminist dogma". Although there are feminists who agree with her, it is far from being the only position towards prostitution held by feminists and it's not like feminists don't heavily disagree with each other on the subject like in the very blog-post this comment follows. That part is lie #1.
The next lie is that people didn't object to that:

Stealth Badger replied to that comment with heavy critique:

Read that and think about how dehumanizing that is to say to someone; think about how casually you just swept away everything she said as if it was of no value whatsoever.
If you’re willing to do that, how can anyone be sure whether you’re speaking in support of someone, for them, or over them, especially when you ignore what they have said?

Anthony Kennerson writes:

Your analogy between consensual sex work legally sought and slavery is the most outrageous nonsense…and trivializes actual slavery and real exonomic exploitation that actually exists.

 MsLilithe weighs in:

THAT is the must ludicrous thing I have read thus far. Forget the fact that you just completely erased my sense of agency as a sex worker and that of sex workers who choose their occupation worldwide, you diminished the reality of slavery by comparing it to us. First, I find this comparison very unfeminist (ie, not celebrating the agency and strength and choices of women) second and more importantly, dismissing of the reality of true slavery that has existed and still exists.

So, to say that people didn't object  to Taslima Nasreen's term is another big, fat lie. Paula S. Kirby, you are a liar, ma'am. You, Russell Blackford, are one, too, sir. You whole argument relies on lies, distortions, strawmen and dishonesty.


*What comment you might ask?
The one that re-appeared, apparently. Don't ask me...
Yeah, sometimes I suck. I managed to delete comments by re-saving this as a draft while working on it. Thankfully it was still in my emails:

I'm wondering if Ms. Kirby meant this comment by Talisma Nasarin:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/2012/04/09/sexual-slavery-must-be-abolished/#comment-266

If so then she actually was refuted by her commenters. However I'm not sure that any of the bloggers at FTB saw that comment or if they did see it, say anything about it.