snoozing

21 ms·

1.
by snoozing 4y ago
I don’t know that it’s just patience wearing thin. There’s a lot of fearmongering on both sides. I think people already come to the table really amped up quick to throw stones. Hear, hear on the forums part, though.
2.
by snoozing 4y ago
Fair enough.
3.
by snoozing 4y ago
>but I have something against small group of people imposing on the whole society how we can use word women in context of pregnancy, especially in a world in which only biological woman can give birth to a child. This. There’s a differen
4.
by snoozing 4y ago
Of course they are important. But do they hold more weight to rename how the 99.9% of the population is referred to? it’s the latter that frustrates people IMO. I think if people focused on simple acceptance of themselves instead of trying
5.
by snoozing 4y ago
0.13% -> 1% doesn’t feel like rounding (it’s actually nearly a 10x change). 0.13 is not a large fraction. Assuming good intentions based on your other comments, but these things can elicit negative responses.
6.
by snoozing 4y ago
If women don’t agree with being a large part of their identity being renamed, then it doesn’t feel inclusive.
7.
by snoozing 4y ago
>There are lots of kids born with ambiguous & differing genitals where parents & doctors make an assignment for that kid outside the womb. I don’t think most people would argue against medically intersex people identifying outsid
8.
by snoozing 4y ago
I think you’ve communicated your beliefs and experiences clearly and respectfully. You ask questions rather than name call and finger point. While I personally struggle with these new definitions and their potential cost to certain groups (