all 5 comments

[–]wecandobetter 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The womb envy has reached critical hysteria with these people. Die angry about it, I say.

[–]LasagnaRossa 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nice article. Looking at the diagrams made me think how ridiculous the whole situation is. I mean, I already knew it's a stupid idea to revolutionize language because of a bunch of people, but when you see what the proportions are, you really wonder who's the real recipient.

[–]Susiesmum[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In case it gets taken down https://archive.is/EHpBP

[–]questioningtw 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, but you just don't understand! You have to be inclusive, or ELSE!

[–]slushpilot 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is excellent.

I noticed in that one slide she qualified "heterosexual men" and I don't know exactly why it struck me. While technically obviously true, I feel like the adjective was unnecessary and undercut her point of being able to just say "women" or just say "men".

We all understand exactly what is meant without needing to be overly specific and getting lost in the weeds with contrived "not all men" arguments.