“Don’t say ‘women,’ say ‘non-males.’” My godlessness, how demeaning to women is that?! How cancelling/erasing/marginalizing?
Eric, whatever are you talking about, you ask? Well,
according to the UK Daily Mail, Canada’s New Democratic Party (NDP) recently sent
an email to its members announcing newly elected leaders as ‘non-male’ and ‘male.’” Journalist Jonathan Kay
shared the email via ‘X.’
Moreover, according to lifesitenews.com, the party is now
mandating that at least 50 percent of the signatures collected for its
leadership races be from NDP members who do not identify as “cisgender male,” but
from “equity-seeking groups” such as non-white people, Indigenous members,
LGBTQ+ people, and people with disabilities.
So, humans are either males…or non-males? And there are
only “Cisgender males” or “equity-seeking groups?” But “male” doesn’t mean
anything anymore, either. Who among us can define what a male is? Could be
fluid, on a continuum, or utterly unknowable, right? Who are we to judge? But
that is precisely what the NDP has done, apparently, with its new binaries. Think
of describing a fellow human being as either “male” or “non-male.” That is the
opposite of inclusive. We aren’t even supposed to say the word “female?” Dismissing
slightly more than half of the world’s population out-of-hand seems marginalizing
and misogynistic to me. As well as insane. So, “non-male” is meaningless, too.
Which is what they are aiming for and why they use those
terms.
What’s next? Are the destructive progressive whackos
going to assert that there are only Jews and non-Jews? Blacks and non-blacks? Wealthy
and non-wealthy? Oh, I see it now. There are only oppressors and the oppressed.
Males being the oppressors, non-males being the oppressed.
Are there only Buffalo Bills fans and non-Buffalo Bills
fans? Capricorns and non-Capricorns?
That is patently absurd. As is Canada’s “New Democratic
Party.” Right, non-New Democratic Party members?
No comments:
Post a Comment