you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Hannibalboy93 25 insightful - 5 fun25 insightful - 4 fun26 insightful - 5 fun -  (3 children)

"Cis male-only spaces only cater to a gendered essentialism that is very much at odds with our broader queer agenda."

Oh yeah we know its an agenda, well we want no part of your agenda, kiss my real gay ass.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

"Essentialism"! This is the second time today I've heard this relatively obscure/specialized term being used in one of their arguments. I wonder if this word is part of a new talking point that they now have to persuade people into accepting their wholesale re-definitions of long established labels. By implying that it's somehow dogmatic and prejudiced to actually be aware of and publicly maintain what a particular label means at it's most basic level.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's been in their lexicon for a long time. Basically they use it to attack anything and anyone who wants words to have definitions.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ah, I didn't know; I've haven't encountered it too much myself. It sounds like a philosophy term.