106

51 comments

People is generally assumed to mean men, men are the default and when you talk about people it is assumed to affect everyone not a particular section thus it minimizes it in the mind and makes it seem fare in a sense that everyone will be affected equally.

it is deliberate double speak to hide injustice to groups in society.

By substituting people for women, we lose the ability to speak of women as a class.

Salient.

I also like the phrase she used: "The Great Unwomening".

And now, as another thread informs us, the ACLU is on record saying there are not two biological sexes.

[–] NoDayForADo 21 points Edited

Ah yes our old friend, BIPOC. The popularization of BIPOC is when I first began to suspect the left had lost its mind. Our (very white) area decided to start an anti-racism society of sorts to show support and make BIPOC feel more welcome. This was very much centered around Black Lives Matter. Every time it came up I would think but wait we're talking about black people. We're not talking about indgenous people or people of any other non-white backgrounds, we are specifically talking about black people. Why are we not saying black? Can you not say black any more? Why are we lumping together groups of people who don't neccassarily have anything in common? It is supposed to sound more educated but it feels more ignorant?

I swear it was EVERYWHERE for a while.

I can't believe how long ago that feels now.

[–] loren 15 points Edited

I live in the PNW (still very much white) and our public library system had a workshop in April aimed at white women, teaching them how to ‘challenge their inner “Becky”.

I kid you not the workshop was called “Interventions of White Woman-ness In Our Community”. Found out about it after the fact but I’m still waiting to hear back from the library manager about what I felt seeing that, as a chicana woman.

Let me guess, there were no workshops aimed at any men at all, asking them to do or to challenge anything at all, were there.

No there wasn’t, and that’s the main reason it made me upset. It seemed like it was meant to challenge these women more so than “whiteness”.

As a chicana, born to undocumented Mexican parents, growing up in central California I never felt pressured to “assimilate” by whites I grew up around. I was never teased for learning English as a second language. My family and I felt welcome, it wasn’t until I lived in a place that was majority white did I experience these things. But not from whites, only from other people of color.

I was told I was acting “too white”, I was teased by Latino peers for “talking like a white valley girl when you’re just as much of a beaner as the rest of us”. Xenophobia was very common from non-white Americans towards my family and I.

I think that’s why it upsets me. I grew up in an environment where I wasn’t pressured by whites, white women especially, to be anything but myself. That stuck with me and I would never condone “reeducation” on anyone else. It’s evil no matter where it comes from.

Holy. Crap. I would love to hear what the outline of that was?

[–] loren 4 points Edited

From the library’s website:

(Name removed), Associate Professor of Sociology and Ethnic Studies at (Removed), will lead participants to examine some of the most common socialized tendencies that white women exhibit ("Becky" or "Karen" behaviors) that can get in the way of advancing equity work and allyship. Participants will learn to develop opportunities to interrupt these behaviors to advance the work of racial equity in our community. Registration required.

Keep in mind our local library functions as a co-op. So our county shares one giant library system. Tons of eyes looked at this and said “this is perfectly fine”.

It's a very lazy way to give a "shout out" to oppressed indigenous people without actually having to do anything.

Now it's land acknowledgements. Cool in theory, but just more performative bullshit in practice.

Completely performative. My workplace was told via mass email that we had to stop adding them to meetings as it was offending our local tribes. Guess nobody thought to ask them first or see what they thought before jumping headfirst into the trend.

I don't know how in hell BIPOC caught on. It took me forever to even remember what it stands for. I keep thinking "bisexual" when I see the first part of it. And isn't it redundant? Black and indigenous people are people of color. It just seems like a stupid woke acronym that is used for liberal points without meaning anything of substance.

[–] Gladys_Kravitz 20 points Edited

And that’s how you end up with the National Women’s Law Center tweeting, “In case you didn’t hear it right the first time: People of all genders need abortions. People of all genders need abortions. People of all genders need abortions. People of all genders need abortions. People of all genders need abortions. People of all genders need abortions.” (No, that’s not my copy-and-paste keys getting stuck. The group really said it six times.)

Absolutely unhinged—this is what severe mental illness looks like. This is not normal or helpful behavior—this is abnormal, malicious, obstructive, and weird. It's the kind of thing you'd see in someone having a psychotic break with reality.

[–] bellatrixbells BoobatrixRex 6 points Edited

It's like they believe repeating mantras ad nauseam will make their beliefs true.

Maybe they should try clicking their ruby heels while saying it.

...or maybe in the dark in front of a mirror with a lit candle?

That tweet was truly ratioed, though.

I am confused about the thinking of the true believers in the gender identity cult who are actually being hurt by it, the handmaidens. They can't possibly see what is happening to their rights? Or don't they mind? Do they see themselves as so privileged that they can hand over women's sports and scholarships and single sex female spaces? Do they not need a name for their sex any longer? Or is the approval they get sufficient to reward them? Or are all those tweeting this shit identifying as something miraculously more powerful than just icky women?

I do think that privilege is a huge part of it. These things don’t affect them as much day to day. They can virtue signal at a party or social media and that’s about as much as they interact with any of it.

It’s also no coincidence that the gender cult really hit the mainstream after the Occupy Wallstreet protests. It divides the 99% and when we squabble we ignore the oligarchy. It also gives wealthier people (still within the 99% but not the bottom strata) the ability to become both victims and victim advocates instead of reflecting on their own contributions to income disparity.

(No, that’s not my copy-and-paste keys getting stuck. The group really said it six times.)

Are these the same folks who used to show up at the airport with their incense & begging bowls?

It's the kind of thing you'd see in someone having a psychotic break with reality. And also, it's the kind of thing you would see in someone who knows this is NOT so, but is trying to convince themselves.

[–] cousinanger 8 points Edited

Gillian Branstetter, the ACLU spokeswoman, reacted on Twitter to the Atlantic article by saying "This becomes easier to accept if you believe that women are, in fact, people" The implication is that erasing women is fine because we are included in 'people'. But we are also included in 'mammals' so erasing 'people' in repro rights articles would be fine if 'mammals' was substituted for it. They know they are erasing one biological sex but don't care.

Not only do they not care, I very much believe they actually like it.

I think it's a form of psychological self harm. They feel guilt, pain, anger, sadness etc because of how they've been treated as women, and because there's almost nothing we can do about a lot of sexism in society they take it out on themselves. The negative energy has to go somewhere and women are the ones who turn it inward.

That's a salient point when it comes to women, but Gillian Branstetter is a TIM.

You are kinder than I am. In Branstetter's comments they come across as rather uninformed on the issues, and some are just obnoxious.

I went to the abortion march this afternoon. Most people avoided trans lingo and just said women. I think when things get serious, people let go of the politically correct BS.

I went to a different abortion march, and each of the speakers, as well as all of the chants, studiously avoided using the word "women" -- except for the black speaker, whose emphasis was on black women and girls. I thought that was interesting.

....is The Atlantic allowed to say this? Are they next up for cancellation?

I know, right?

The author is called a TERF, of course, among the wokerati. But yes, the Atlantic has always dipped its toe in the water in the sense of publishing some people with views their readers might not always like. I think most people haven't thought about the clashing rights and demands for rights in any detail and are not even aware of the erasure of the female sex. Many of those could be readers of the Atlantic.

Nice.

I wrote to Lewis about these concerns a few weeks ago, hoping that she agrees. Great that she does!

But she doesn't go into the fact that most people don't have a gender identity which would not be based on their sex. Most people are men or women based on their sex, either directly (use gender for sex in their understanding) or indirectly (base gender on the way cultures assign social meanings to sex). When that definition of 'women' is no longer used, most people then won't understand what gender they are now supposed to be.

(Was your first post deleted?) Here's my previous comment.

And this is so much of it:

History suggests that society doesn’t care much about women, so maybe abortion rights will have more appeal if supporters invoke some other causes instead.

And it is just insane:

The word women has been purged from the front page of the NARAL website, while the Lilith Fund helps “people who need abortions in Texas

Fund Texas Women has been renamed Fund Texas Choice. The National Abortion Federation’s response to the Supreme Court leak noted that it will “keep fighting until every person...

the National Women’s Law Center tweeting, “In case you didn’t hear it right the first time: People of all genders need abortions. People of all genders need abortions...

Amazing article! Second one against the ACLU after the Amber Heard one.

If any of you are out on twitter, like the post! Comment! And this is so much of it:

History suggests that society doesn’t care much about women, so maybe abortion rights will have more appeal if supporters invoke some other causes instead.

And it is just insane:

The word women has been purged from the front page of the NARAL website, while the Lilith Fund helps “people who need abortions in Texas

Fund Texas Women has been renamed Fund Texas Choice. The National Abortion Federation’s response to the Supreme Court leak noted that it will “keep fighting until every person...

the National Women’s Law Center tweeting, “In case you didn’t hear it right the first time: People of all genders need abortions. People of all genders need abortions...

Amazing article! Second one against the ACLU after the Amber Heard one.

If any of you are out on twitter, like the post! Comment! https://twitter.com/TheAtlantic/status/1525466982358867968

Jesus, what did the ACLU say about Amber Heard?

So, apparently the ACLU is behind the entire Heard scandal! They approached her to ghost right an article for her to be their face of domestic violence victims, and she would "donate" 3.5 million dollars.

The ACLU lawyers assured her that nothing they wrote would put her at risk for defamation.

The Atlantic just did an article on it, along the lines of: "the ACLU lost their way".

Is this a repost?

The article has today's date, so I don't think so

Oh, a repost from like 30 minutes ago, this article was posted with a few comments and I went to edit mine and it the post was deleted. (I followed the OPs name to get here)

This was my comment copied from the original.

Yes, I had to repost this - apparently I was supposed to use the title of the article as the title of the post, and I didn't do that the first time. So hopefully this will do.

I've been saying for a few. years that if you can't define what a woman is, how can you fight for our rights. The far-left hypocrites have suddenly rediscovered the word "woman" now that abortion rights are going to be gone.

Load more (2 comments)