Social Justice Warriors Thread

[Speaker to Animals]

"My baby"

[de officiis]

The government has said the term “pregnant woman” should not be used in a UN treaty because it “excludes” transgender people.

Feminists reacted with outrage to what they said was the latest example of “making women unmentionable” in the name of transgender equality.

The statement comes in Britain’s official submission on proposed amendments to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the UK has been a signatory since 1976. The UN treaty says a “pregnant woman” must be protected, including not being subject to the death penalty.

Yet in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office submission, Britain opposes the term “pregnant woman” because it may “exclude transgender people who have given birth”. The suggested term is “pregnant people.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news ... d=43797321

[TheReal_ND]

All these people are practically signing themselves up for concentration camps at this point.

[Ph64]

The government has said the term “pregnant woman” should not be used in a UN treaty because it “excludes” transgender people.

Feminists reacted with outrage to what they said was the latest example of “making women unmentionable” in the name of transgender equality.

The statement comes in Britain’s official submission on proposed amendments to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the UK has been a signatory since 1976. The UN treaty says a “pregnant woman” must be protected, including not being subject to the death penalty.

Yet in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office submission, Britain opposes the term “pregnant woman” becaxuse it may “exclude transgender people who have given birth”. The suggested term is “pregnant people.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news ... d=43797321

The inevitable end to identity politics, the various groups will start tearing each other apart.

[Ex-California]

This intersectionality bullshit is becoming pretty offensive to real women

[Okeefenokee]

[Speaker to Animals]

I don't think this intersectionality farce is the end of identity politics at all. When intersectionality collapses under its own contradiction and absurdity, that collapse will spell the end of the current coalition of identity politics arrayed against white men.

The other issue here is that the identity politic inherent between men and women by virtue of our differences really does not compare to the kinds of identity politics that exist between races. The same can be said of religion.

Intersectionality attempts to treat all three as generally the same thing under the umbrella idea that white men are evil and should be exterminated, etc. It just doesn't work because there exist differences between these groups. But intersectionality presupposes that with every difference there exists a "better" or "more justified", identity, which is absurd.

What destroys the left's conception of identity is the belief that there must exists some hierarchy of justification, which they attempt to define through the lens of privilege, but no such thing actually exists.

The reality is that identity politics is the default state of politics that will render the left-right paradigm moot. The only way to go back to the left-right paradigm is to remove the differences that give rise to identity politics, which is not realistic. That ship sailed when we flooded our nations with nonwhites.

There are lots of ways we can make this work, but people need to abandon both civic nationalism and Marxist "intersectionality" myths. We can all get along for the most part if we learn to respect our differences, give each other space to live our lives, and organize politics around the needs of the different ethnic groups.

[TheReal_ND]

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/10/17/an ... s-library/

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA SHUT THE OBLIVION GATE

[PartyOf5]

"My baby"

She's admitting the baby has cognitive abilities and yet she'll argue that it's not a person in order to justify the right to kill it.

[Speaker to Animals]

"My baby"

She's admitting the baby has cognitive abilities and yet she'll argue that it's not a person in order to justify the right to kill it.

You don't even have to stretch the statement that far. She acknowledged that this is a baby and demands the right to kill the baby for whatever reason. Think about that.

The only way abortion is superficially justifiable is when the person labors under the false notion that it's just a "clump of cells" and not a human baby they are killing. They consciously acknowledge they kill babies now and they still don't care.