Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Riley Gaines advocates for women!
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2025 17:16:13 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <vno98t$pd49$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vn4irf$3fstj$1@dont-email.me> <vnm9l9$9i5o$4@dont-email.me> <vnmvd1$hvfj$1@dont-email.me> <vno32o$obpp$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2025 18:16:14 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cc9bbd154416ae62c73d00280b4d648b";
	logging-data="832649"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/knQ86jymjPYM76jr5qpvjADU3+At25QM="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jkzFS1020iP3RjnxZ38Bs/bpJeg=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 2953

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>Feb 1, 2025 at 9:21:37 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>>>Here's another girl who very Riley-esque and is speaking nothing but facts.
>>>Notice the sour expression on the other woman's face as her wokeness is
>>>destroyed in the face of reality.

>>>https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1866900333407907840/pu/vid/avc1/576x1024/hxmahlRllijkpsQK.mp4?tag=12

>>	I don't think this is semantics at all. I think we are removing,
>>	strategically, women from the process by engaging in what we
>>	like to call inclusive language, but in reality is just a lie. I
>>	have a hard believing a society who can't define what a woman is
>>	is actually interested in including women.

>>Huh. moviePigging the language is likely to cause real-world harm. Who
>>might have foreseen that?

>Notice the woke doctor says, "people who are born biologically female but who,
>through societal norms, identify as male."

>Societal norms? They're not only telling us men can get pregnant but they're
>try to sell the idea that *this* is the normal state of things and that
>objecting to it makes *you* the iconoclast.

Isn't this a "Be careful what you with for" scenario? At the height of
women's liberation in the early '70s, there were complaints that men
weren't sympathetic toward pregnancy and its implications (like there's
going to be spawn to raise) and complications because they themselves
can't get pregnant.

At some point, it will become a lifestyle choice for a dude to have a
womb artificially implanted so he can feel the joy of pregnancy. What
with genetic modifications or cloning or artificial creation of eggs,
women won't even be required for the conception part of reproduction.

Manking will be able to do without women.

Those women who argued for this, even sarcastically, are now in their
80s and 90s and won't live to see this, but it's coming.