To provide an affirming environment

Here we go again.

You can’t do that, you can’t say that, you can’t invite her, you can’t do anything without our prior approval.

I did read it. It’s utterly typical and utterly contemptible.

Image

None of them are “LGBTQ+” because no one can be all of those things. By “allies” they don’t mean people who think same-sex attraction should not be ostracized or shamed in any way, they mean people who are eager to enforce a new and stupid doctrine of Magic Gender on the entire world. With Allies like that who needs an Axis?

By the same token there’s no such thing as “an affirming environment for LGBTQ+ members” because they have different and incompatible goals and worldviews, whether they realize it or not.

In both cases of course the wording is meant to function as a threat and a shaming device. “Y R U abusing the LGBTQ+ communiddy?”

Ah the inclusion of the last speaker is the problem, is it? Inclusion for me but not for thee.

Image

What are her crimes?

She has said that in the particular post she is writing she won’t refer to a man who calls himself a woman as a woman, because the fact that he’s a man is at the heart of what she’s writing about.

She wrote that post about Mridul Wadwha, a man who applied for a job as head of a rape crisis centre advertised as women-only, and she referred to him as a man, because putting a man in charge of a rape crisis centre is a very bad thing to do.

But these bedwetters want all that covered up and concealed in language that pretends Wadwha is a woman, and they want groveling and reparations and everybody gets a new car because Naomi Cunningham was invited to their dire “annual dinner and discussion.”

6 Responses to “To provide an affirming environment”