If
Uh oh. Rachel Maddow could be in for some shunning.
New rule:
If you don’t have a vagina, you don’t get to make laws regulating them.
Tip Jar
Uh oh. Rachel Maddow could be in for some shunning.
New rule:
If you don’t have a vagina, you don’t get to make laws regulating them.
Yes. She is likely to be shunned by some feminists. (Doesn’t she know she’s supposed to say, “if you are not a woman”, not, “if you do not have a vagina”?! What’s with the horrible inclusive language?)
Fantastic. Though I would add a question: If you have a vagina and are a part of any organized religion based on the principles of ancient male barbarians, then WTF? [Disclaimer: I do not have a vagina, but I am proudly not a member of any religion and I suspect most if not all readers here are not either.]
Silentbob, how is that inclusive? After all, she left out all the women that don’t have vaginas. By limiting the rule-making to vagina-havers, she excludes all those who identify as female without a vagina.