Today in Female Erasure – The Non-Men Category…
October 25, 2023 in Feminism | Tags: Female Erasure | by The Arbourist
Your opinions…
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
- Uber called out by service dog users who are fed up with ride rejections
- Carney weighs sending soldiers to Greenland for military exercises with NATO allies: sources
- Sexual assault survivor calls for accountability after police comments left her feeling ‘humiliated’
- Death toll climbs to 39 in high-speed train collision in Spain
- How Canadian doctors are preparing for potential FIFA World Cup public health challenges
- Trump's 'Board of Peace' proposal met with skepticism, caution amid shaky Gaza ceasefire
- #TheMoment Kawhi Leonard joined kids on the basketball court
- Survey from Winnipeg spa asked 'blatantly disrespectful' question about 'purity of the country': customer
- Vancouver police deployed to 11 planned protests in 1 weekend
- Man dead after police-involved shooting on New Brunswick First Nation
Blogs I Follow
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
5 comments
October 25, 2023 at 6:54 am
Steve Ruis
Wait, men aren’t “non-women”? (This is bizarre.) They could update the definition of lesbian, the old definition, by just adding “this may include non-binary people, too.” No? But I guess erasing women is what that eraser at the other end of their pencils is for.
LikeLike
October 25, 2023 at 9:23 am
The Arbourist
@Steve Rius
It has always been the female erasure angle in the name of “inclusivity”. This is where the terms like ‘chest feeding’ and ‘birthing person’ come from. To placate the gender-feelings of delusional men, women must once again cede their rights and space in society. :/
LikeLiked by 1 person
October 25, 2023 at 9:39 am
tildeb
Kafkaesque.
LikeLike
October 25, 2023 at 11:04 am
SM
Tell me again that this isn’t a Men’s Rights movement
LikeLike
October 25, 2023 at 12:09 pm
Infidel753
This is completely insane. Everybody knows what a lesbian is, and this convoluted definition is worse than useless because it uses terms which, unlike “lesbian”, are unclear to most people. For one thing, “non-men” technically includes young boys, and “lesbian” doesn’t include women who are attracted to young boys, if that even exists. I suppose they could use “non-males”, but the term “male” opens its own woke can of worms these days. They can’t even make their own gobbledygook make sense.
I have never seen any evidence that “non-binary” has any meaning.
Of course you’re right about female erasure. They never use terms like “testicle havers” or “ejaculators” to refer to men. It’s Orwellian Newspeak — the mandatory use of deliberately-distorted language to force thought into only those channels which The Party finds acceptable. In 1984, Newspeak included re-definition of existing words as well as making up new ones.
LikeLike