Exh wom eeeyreyr

I ask political commentator Emma Vigeland (TYT/Majority report) in a way that the majorityreport youtube users would want challenge me on my views on women erasure (like below) and to have a discourse and a literal conversation with me about my views on women erasure to bring me leftward on that issue. Emma, at minimum tell give me ideas to better reframe my views on women erasure so I can get my point across without offending the Liberal 2.0ers and trans community.  

Ana and me are concerned about woman-mother erasure because cis women are under attack just like trans people are. In some places femicide is a huge threat, abortion access has been made harder for US women, and there is nihilism or waryness for feminism by Gen Zers (plus the rise of Andrew Tate's macho cultists). So cis women like Ana who are concerned with women-mother erasure deserve to have their voices heard too #letherspeak

I acknowledge that trans-folks have a hard enough time as it is and that haphazard remarks (like some I make) can certainly feel like a betrayal to some people, especially in uncertain times. 

At worst Emma, I would like to improve on the trans inclusive language issue like Sam Seder has in the last 12 months . Like Sam was before he got better, I am really awful on trans inclusive language, I want to at least clumsily get better with my trans language. I strive to clearly try to at least, so help me do so

Anyway Emma here we go (here is what you have to work with)

I saw Ana's tweet here: "I'm a woman. Please don't ever refer to me as a person with a uterus, birthing person, or person who menstruates. How do people not realize how degrading this is? You can support the transgender community without doing this shit."

and I'm not certain I understand what people are upset about. She rightfully never said, in the tweet at least, transphobic rhetoric like trans women aren't women or shouldn't be called women regardless of whether they have a uterus or not.   To me, Ana is saying it's reductive to call her something other than a woman because she has a uterus. She rightfully never says ONLY women who can give birth should be called women.

Just like I would never call a man who can give birth a "person who menstruates". I'd refer to them as "a man who...."

I took that to be her meaning but maybe I'm misunderstanding. But in this case of Ana Kasparian's tweet, I think since she identifies as woman, she’s defensive and paranoid about anything related to that topic. This is sort of similar to nimby-ism, just with a different issue. (but I am ok with Nimbyism in certain cases)

I do acknowledge (and something for you to work with Emma in the way that the themajorityreport subredditers want) that people like Ana having mass hysteria over individual women being called these degraded and dehumanizing terms is a situation where nobody wins and everyone loses and is non edifying at best , and literally wrongly leaves Ana and others open to attacks by Liberal 2.0 aggressive T.R.As who in their small minds wrongly believe such views are 'laundered in center right (or worse) talking points' 

Maybe it is worth correcting me on and also helping her at least use good PR tactics on said issue (in a way that themajorityreport subredditers want Emma to correct us on). 

Such terms are rarely used in casual conversation. In fact I have never heard any of these terms Ana uses in her tweet outside of a few tweets on Twitter and PowerPoint screenshots where academics grasp desperately for some woke medical terminology. Ana has to realize that a VERY SMALL niche of people using terms like birthing person to include trans men and non-binary does not invalidate women (but that still doesn't invalidate Ana's concern either)

If Ana makes these comments about being threatened by women erasure she also should more vocal also about anti-trans legislation as to avoid wokescolding by Liberal 2.0 wokeflakes

Nobody's womanhood should be threatened by woman erasure

“you can support the trans community without doing this shit” I get that since someone has a massive platform like Ana Kasparian uses the terminology above it can get lumped in by wokesters with the terf mindset due to those wokesters PTSD. Though at the very least and at minimum, I would tell Ana that if someone on the street called her something she didn’t like that’s when she should correct them . Like If this were interpersonal and someone actually said that to her? Yeah, tell them to fuck off.  That is what I would do I would correct them for calling me such dehumanizing and degrading words like vagina haver, menestrator, birther etc.  

But yeah, trans folks are having their existence criminalized in state after state and whining about language does seem to be petty to people who are terminally online and they weaponize such things against us anti women erasure advocates. (but then again see this link for some perspectives on that)

But like Ana I am sure a lot of women don’t want to be minimized to a bodily function or body part

So at the end of the day what Ana tweeted is a correct and logical statement. I wonder if Ana is drafting her apology now? It’s not just that people will disagree with Ana, it’s how they’ll disagree with her . It’ll be relentless, hate-filled and with no room for “let’s agree to disagree”. They’ll be no forgiveness. And just watch the moral righteousness. It’ll be off the scale. But kudos for Ana for having balls of steel in saying the truth

Now I also preference what I write with this: As I have said elsewhere, I am sure that no one is asking women to call themselves or to be called anything other than a woman. And I can definitely see that anatomy-oriented language is used only in a clinical context, where anatomy is relevant. So maybe the whole 'stop woman erasure arguments' is like a trap set up by TERFs, so I am trying not to take the bait

Emma Vigeland had some good takes on Ana Kasparian's anti woman erasure tweet here

Are people really pretending that "people who menstruate" is a term only used in clinical settings? AOC uses it and she doesn't appear to be a doctor. If we all have agreement that it's not what you should call a woman in non-clinical settings, great! Deal! Let America rejoice! (but even in the clinical settings I disagree but in a nice, agree to disagree way)

Its being used as a woke descriptor, not replacing “women”. None of these people are walking around going “oh, look at that menstruator. Beyoncé is a menstruator. Menstruators and gentlemen” or whatever. Theyre just referring to people who menstruator, who aren’t just women

It is hypocritical. A lot of Liberal 2.0er wokesters rightfully call abortion is a woman's issue (#abortioniswomenshealthcare) but these same Liberal 2.0ers do not call abortion a 'people's issue' (you will never hear them say #abortionisbirthershealthcare) even though Trans men can need abortions too. Double standards for Liberal 2.0er woke losers. 

I am fine with what Ana said about women erasure

The  TYT are very pro-trans, do people watch the show (Just the other day as Ana tweeted this she and Cenk were calling out the so called right's supposed drag queen 'hysteria'). However some leftists do claim that they had some negative and 'horrible' coverage of trans issues when the whole bathroom bill thing started

Saying that the TYT likes grifters because Cenk was maybe dismissive in one conversation one time, and because Ana was cordial with a colleague while he was a colleague, and because some radlib Liberal 2.0ers just kinda feel like it's true. Pay no attention to the blatantly antagonistic relationship that the TYT now has with both true 'grifters' like Jimmy Dore and Dave Rubin. 

Ana stating one opinion (that I as a very pro trans person I agree with her on) doesn't make Ana or me a TERF.

And the reaction to her tweet was over the top (with the exception of the reaction from Vaush and Humanist Report who respectfully disagreed with her). Zero nuance, zero interest in understand why she or me feels the way we do on woman erasure

I let this quote from themajorityreport subreddit by an awesome Transgender user guide me on my views on woman erasure and mother erasure so I don't leave myself open to being seen as a Terf "I'm trans, so it does bother me a little and here's why: I don't really much care about "birthing persons/people with a uterus" language vs. women, it's not something you really see outside of a medical context. That having been said, if that's the thing you're blowing up about not liking it doesn't take much for me to guess how you actually see people like me."

So am not blowing up about woman erasure , mother erasure or 'trans inclusive' labels. To do so would make trans people wrongly guess I don't think much of them (which is not the case)

But at the same time, in a nice, friendly ,diplomatic, edifying way, I do feel that Cisgender Women should always be called women and categorized as women/females and NOT be called or categorized as birthers, menestrators or vagina havers etc. But I also recognize such terms are not used really outside of medical professionals or some rare niche of academics so there is that.

Yes WOMEN are sadly appear to be 'erased' and most women like Ana Kasparian, Bette Midler etc rightfully do not like to be labeled as birthers or vagina havers and the like . The next step for us after hearing those labels is naturally to think such words are TACTICAL SEXISM AND DEHUMANIZING. I mean we have to admit that being a woman is not a feeling, there is more to that.  

I will always use the term woman and mother. I know a lot of Transgender people don't really care about terms like "birthing persons/people with a uterus" and similar language vs. the words women, but we have to care that some women do feel that Transgenderism is erasing women (which it probably is)

The right restricts womens rights to have abortions and the Liberal 2.0ers and pro Transgender factions are said by some on the Left to erase women. To these women this is real so we can't discount that.

I mean trans men make up less than 1 percent of the population so I do not perceive women erasure to happen due to those low numbers but I myself refuse to play along to appease them (and most Transgender people are fine with me using the terms mother and women since they don't really care about birthing person/people with a uterus, vagina havers' so they won't mind me not using 'trans inclusive' language)  See this for more  

The cringe outrage over what Ana Kasparian said about woman erasure is one stupidest things I've ever seen. I can understand why it's used in some contexts but I can also understand why some don't. Yet, in my opinion, Ana's or your own is not very important because this is a relatively trivial issue. Twitter leftists seem to think that saying the correct words makes you a morally good person and being a morally good person is the point of being on the left.

Furthermore, Trans activists have created a overtly toxic in group over the top validation culture on the internet and it’s fostered such toxic discourse on so many issues like they did with their reaction to Ana Kasparian. I’m sorry but progressives have to draw the line somewhere with this movement and set up some appropriate boundaries and to ease off of giving way on things that they shouldn’t

Many peoples' doctors do not refer to ciswomen as "birthing persons/people with a uterus." this terminology was invented and is used practically exclusively by online folk more than the medical field and politicians who use it wrongly when talking about abortion . 

Such online people and to lesser extent the latter two groups are the types of people who feel referring to things that are traditionally women's issues as women's issues are exclusionary to trans people. Plenty of examples of this surrounding abortion conversations as I just mentioned.

it is this sentiment that Ana takes issue with. It’s just tricky because everyone’s first aberrant self is victim. Everyone. So she thinks “woman” becomes a bad word when the wording was such to include her view, but it had been her historical identity (and seemingly not in need of defense, as she must think it is now), and is a reduction of her personhood, because we all define ourselves by what we have and what we could lose, as a victim.

It’s Loss Aversion in psychology. Basically, you’ll fight harder for a dollar in your pocket than you will for one on the ground.

But this is directly the relevance of equality feeling like oppression to the entitled. Because they perceive a loss.

Which is super problematic because every person responds with victim emotion to perceived loss, regardless of amount they have.

Anyway I agree with you. She’s not a victim here and the blaming of reductive or subtractive identity and labeling is not an issue, except to people whose worlds are a bit small. How to break them out if that small world? I think the only way is data, feedback, more info. With logic and empathy and sympathy we can more easily get over ourselves.

Is she being labeled as a TERF? I just realized this is what JK Rowling also does, I mean in a nutshell (which is a bad colloquialism given).

We’re so indoctrinated to scarcity that we can’t give without assuming we’ll lose. It’s shitty but the assumption serves its purpose, which is this bullshit.

Of course some Liberal 2.0 radlib detractors of Ana's comment claim that their woke scorn is rational due to rampant transphobia in our society which to them means that when their allies like Ana allegedly get high-fives from 'transphobes' and then are told to shut the fuck up for daring they have a right to ask for a crumb of self-awareness from said public media figures such as Ana. 

These aggressive T.R.A further this apologia by claiming its not about people like me or Ana "saying the correct words," it's just about us being responsible with our platform. (thanks Dad!!). But I don't think the fact that she got high fives from trans phobes doesn't mean anything.

Another common apologia reply to Ana's tweet which is within reach of being well meaning is "Also terfs like JK Rowling didn’t just come out as full-blooded terfs on day one. She started with the more “reasonable” foot in the door terf arguments about how “I have nothing against trans people I just think women are being erased by their existence (JK Rowling tweeted pretty much the exact same thing)”. 

Isn’t Ana Kasparian following the same logic that trans people are, in rightfully wanting their gender they identify with to be respected and acknowledged? How is her grievance any different from a trans person being mis gendered or mis labelled?

I get why someone who doesn't know Ana Kasparian's record would be upset or don't know my pro Trans advocacy would get upset about our views on woman erasure, but some of the people upset or who would be upset are people who have known and watched her for years or people who would have known me for years, which is just disingenuous at this point.

They know she's not a transphobe and you can tell by my blogs I am not a transphobe. She may be misunderstanding this particular issue as I might be to ,but Ana and me have no malice. And if there is no room for well-meaning people like me and Ana to misunderstand such things and make mistakes, we've lost the plot. There is a mighty difference between bigotry and learning. For some reason, people aren't willing to recognize that nuance. Coming at people with their pitchforks has become a hobby.

The unfortunate thing is that because she was criticized so viciously and I would be to a lesser extent due to our woman erasure views, it's caused her to dig her heels in (but I will never dig my heels in). So now she's not budging on something that's just based on a misunderstanding (I will budge if I find I evidence in an Omniliberal -Joe Rogan learning to be more liberal-left way that I need to budge). 

No one is acting in good faith at this point. She won't listen to anything anyone has to say unless they agree with her (I am not like that), and the attack dogs on her back are wrongly and stupidly acting like she's Matt Walsh. This whole mess is cringe

Her comments about the homeless are far more offensive and troubling. As is Cenk endorsing/voting for near-Republicans profiting off gentrifying real estate developments.

So with all that in mind:

I am against Women erasure (regardless if Transgenderism 'erasing women' is real or not) Why can’t we say 'woman' anymore?"  We should continue to say it just like we always have said it without fear of the woke pc mob trying to silence, ostracize, bully and shame anyone who doesn't give into their b.s (those Twitter leftists I mentioned above here I am being more candid)  note 2

It is so sad that the word 'Woman' is in danger of being turned into a word with negative connotations in some rare and niche fields …under the threat of being struck from the lexicon of officialdom, which might lead to its eradicated from medical vocabulary and expunged from conversation. We have to prevent that from happening and to not let the woke PC mob continue to do what they do  note 2

But let us not forget Simone de Beauvoir’s notable statement that “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” On the “gender critical” worldview a person is born a woman in virtue of their reproductive capacities. On an actual gender critical worldview, we can acknowledge that a trans man is a man because of the identification processes that is critical to his authentic self-becoming. 

It is not about just “feeling” one way or another in the fast and loose sense that a person “feels” hungry or “feels” tired. It is a non reducible phenomenon that cannot be reduced to any specific set of “feelings” but encompasses a person’s complete mode of being.

Even though I do not support referring to cisgender mothers as ‘birthers’/birthing persons and I will never refer to a woman who is a parent as a birther/birthing person (since referring to mothers as birthers strips women away from a big part of what they do, and is basically an erasure), I will note that in mammals, "mother" is the label, first and foremost, for the organism which supplied the egg, gestated, and gave birth to an offspring. that is the LITERAL meaning of the word mother.  note 2

All of the other uses of the term mother, whether it is figurative, metaphorical, or otherwise non-literal meanings of the word are built from that.

We have additional modifier words to show when the literal meaning is not in play, including surrogate, adoptive, step-, foster, -in-law, etc, for the exact reason in that the literal meaning of the word is, "one who gives birth."

Moreover the term “Birthing person" is at the very least logically consistent, even if it is annoying. "Fathers who give birth" sounds like nonsense, an empty set unless we are talking about seahorses. note 2

They are attempting to create an underclass of surrogate "birthing people", so that the wealthy don't have to suffer the ‘indignity’ of birthing an infant. So that is accomplished by decoupling the act of giving birth from raising a child note 2

If the government employees are going to be forced to use one of these terms, then it is worse for them to be forced to say something that most of them know to be false, instead of something which is merely annoying but accurate (birthing person or birther). You want to see dystopian, the government forcing people to lie is dystopian.   note 2

People can say whatever they want about themselves, but when it comes to compelling others to play along, and the goal here is to compel, beginning with government employees since they very easy to compel , we can grow more skeptical.

The bigger issue is that we have to find a different word for social gender and biological sex.

We do have different words for them, but the real issue is that some people believe it is possible to change from one gender to the other, other people do not believe that, and there is never going to be total agreement one way or the other. So no new terminology is going to satisfy both sides in the foreseeable future note 2

I think the issue is that this is on top of those comments, and she's digging her heels in (or Cenk is for her? I've not seen her personal responses to this, just Cenk's defenses on twitter).

It's an absurd leap to wrongly assume that Ana Kasparian is a transphobe off of her one tweet. (There is no way that people who are actually listening to tyt than a day think she is transphobic)

However, that tweet is a hot take and she should be capable of taking in new information and realizing her own problematic (but correct and base) speech. The fact TYT thus far seems intent to call criticism "bullying" rather than listen is quite frankly alarming and disappointing all in one (and I fall into that trap to unapologetically)

Nobody should be calling her literally Matt Walsh. But the Matt Walshes of the world are all agreeing with her tweet, so has the right wing cudies and maybe that should tell her something about her need to re-assess what she said and state it like I have stated my view on it, Ana can do this by listening to people telling her how (like I am doing on Trans issue), and make an informed decision about her personal beliefs as I am also doing.

That said, she's got every opportunity here to do it. "They were mean to me so I'm doubling down" is not a valid excuse for digging in your heels. It's MAGA level spite at that point that has no place in rational adult political discourse.

Trans people are fridge afraid of a modern day holocaust aimed right at them (like see here).People like me and Ana not dealing with that don't get to tone-police the response of that community to one of their own allies regurgitating the precise type of comment which does nothing to ease those fears or to protect trans people from violence (no matter how unlikely it may be)

Ana can either prove she's a progressive figurehead and a kind person by taking a cue from me on woman erasure etc, or she can double down in her ego and join the ranks of those who put their hurt feelings over the well being of others. (like I did with my previous less pc views of woman erasure, mother erasure and related trans issues)

I don't see what was so reactionary about Ana Kasparian's tweet.

Now she was emotionally reacting to the idea of being called “a person with a uterus, etc” and I guess she was being selfish by not using that tweet to also somehow help trans people at the same time. (wip)

It is weird how some radlibs T.R.As use false equivalency with Ana's tweet when they say “people with a uterus should have equal medical freedom” or “people with 2 hands usually buy 2 gloves” neither are degrading just contextual descriptions. My reply to that is :wow, omg, Ana must be a horrible person by typing up such a moderately phrased and tepid tweet. The horror! /s

Yeah man my words and Ana's on woman/mother erasure aren’t terrible out of context (still concern blunt and from our perspectives mind you) but in the context of trans people playing the victim card across the US some Liberal 2.0ers have far less sympathy for our kind of bumbling around on this topic of woman erasure/mother erasure me and Ana have been doing. 

Some trans people like the gays in the B52s song feel fairly powerless and chicken little like scared over this whole wave of trans panic and scapegoating. Mildly unapproved by the woke mom narratives or even other type of bumbling on these topics bumping through woke T.R.A tying it with outright transphobia means some Liberal 2.0 T.R.A who rightfully might have brushed over or looked past in the past really sets said wokies on edge.

Anyway at the end of the day Ana is a content creator and this is definitely content. Ana just needs to take her lumps. Accept your impactful position as a leftist news media influencer and responsibility that comes with dat gworl /s, learn and be even better. She'll be aight.

Matt Binder had his own take on the leftist mafia going after Ana on this

"It's not what she said, It's that she said it.. to publicly validate right wing talking points is extremely irresponsible from someone in her position.Giving the right the perfect line of "even AK, a progressive, thinks trans woke activists are going too far" on a public platform seems like a very stupid thing to do. Your opinion doesnt mean shit, my opinion doesn't mean shit (from a shaping discourse pov) Ana's does. She's a major political figure as a popular pundent."

My reply is: Have people against the left's anti woman erasure/anti mother erasure stances considered that maybe the degree of outrage over things like this also validates right wing talking points?

I take infinitely less of an issue with what Ana said and more of an issue with what a clown fest TYT is. Between supporting a developer billionaire for mayor, not being left wing on homeless , supporting the DNC at all costs, and the fact that they cannot bring themselves to be even nominally anti war... The whole network is trash

The obsession with the "bad takes" of people who are generally on our side is counterproductive.

There's so much obsession with purity. It drives me crazy every time I listen to a segment on the majority report and they bring up Jon Stewart. They invariably have some kind of caveat like, "I know he said some problematic things and I don't always agree with him, but... " Every. Single. Time.

Jon Stewart is a pretty decent semi mainstream voice for largely progressive politics. I'm glad they shout him out from time to time, but it's so cringy that they always have to qualify it.

Leftists are mad because she (accidentally) seemed to in their minds fabricated an issue that gave a slam dunk to reactionary’s who need those fabricated issues to validate their points. Ultimately it doesn’t matter but that is the real reason why leftists on the internet and not just Twitter got frustrated.

100,000% Forget the fact that it’s highly probable there are agent provocateurs on Twitter from various law enforcement agencies and private political agents who want nothing more than to instigate a fragmented and squabbling left so that the left never gains any real power. 

Twitter is full of everyday trolls who are just looking for the dopamine rush of “owning” someone on the left. Twitter is also a horrible platform for real communication due to the character limit, and an algorithm that prefers engagement through enragement.

Progressive talking heads choosing to post on Twitter when they have much more effective communication channels (an actual news podcast) seems to me like mankind, having just invented language and writing, deciding instead to go back to grunts and violence to advance their political ideas. It’s beyond ridiculous.

Nothing wrong with what Ana said — but the woke mob had an issue with how she said it. The outrage machine kicked into gear

She is just out of the Liberal 2.0 radlib T.R.A extremist loop about their 'if you fail this pro trans purity test you are a Rightist' rhetoric because these trans activists think if you are not 110 percent with them you are UNPREPARED for what’s coming next in their minds

This is the root of most controversies. The online left is *far* too online and disconnected. Credit to the MajorityReport crew for generally being an exception. Left Reckoning covering Cop City with Jamie was a good reminder the real world exists

A whole lot of leftists are showing their entire ass in this dust up. At a time when Republicans are transphobes of the decade, we all got to stop and concern ourselves with the feelings of a Ana who does not feel included by exclusive language (i.e the birther, pregnant people language)

Terf is going to quickly become as meaningless as woke.

My reaction when I saw Ana’s tweet - “who cares?”, there is so much going on the world that deserves significantly more discourse than what she tweeted.

That should have been everyone's default reaction.

Remember when it was considered anti-semitic have any opinion that didn't agree with Israel's policy 

Reactionaries gonna react.

Same diff', potato patota.

I don't feel like it was all that much about "using the correct words" as much as it was the fact that Ana was having a chicken little moment of thinking that women are now being called these terms in everyday life (or are under threat to be called these terms in the near future), when in reality, it's just medical and lawmaking language (barely at that). Some T.R.A apologia says suck terms are more, broad umbrella terms being used for the purpose of expediency.

Ana should have used more context and getting defensive and triggered about it as if it is some kind of assault on women for that terminology to exist. No one is expecting, nor calling for these terms to be used in everyday language, but Ana was acting like they were. If that is really the case, then I am even more inclined to agree with her

Ana was having the "I'm the main character" syndrome  coming from her in this particular instance.

Inspired by a Breadtube post; I think we've reached a point where any good-faith or worthwhile discussion has either been had or is too polluted by internet drama and infighting to be worthwhile. It's probably better at this point if people directed their energy to other fights.

For example, Atlanta is trying to build a massive cop facility, on vital forest land, so that they can train their police specifically in how to repress large scale urban rebellions and protests like the 2020 George Floyd protests. 

They're working with Hamas trained Israeli police (the type of Israeli police who are protesting against Benjamin Netanyahu and who's secretly support Palestinian terrorists) to learn how to repress large scale protests, and they could even export it to other parts of the country. And I've barely heard that much about it in bread tube spaces, let alone mainstream discourse. F.D. signifier made a good vid breaking down what's happening and how you can help (although it is a little old https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJfUF6nw5Xg )

Btw I'm not trying to be holier-than-thou or put anyone down, I'm not the best at articulating my thoughts so if it came across that way. I'm just as guilt of engaging in too much internet drama as anyone else here.

I always wonder about Natal women with Y chromosomes who gave birth, are they considered women to TERFs?

The word Woman means adult female human, and the word female means animal with large non-motile gametes, or the type of organs that are associated with large non-motile gametes like the Müllerian system (i.e. female genitalia). 

These are usually produced by XX chromosomes but not every time. All humans are technically animals, see this and this for more on ‘humans are technically animals’ point

Think about how women have always been seen for thousands of years in that you can observe a kid at birth and in almost every case know whether or not they are a boy or a girl. So if you know they are a girl then you know they will grow up to be a woman. The natural genitalia are what defines this; what you don't need to know are their chromosomes.

Any rational person can see that this behavior by this NYC medical official is simply due to the fact that (Liberal 2.0) whites are far likelier to buy into this birther or birthing person type of SJW nonsense language (that consists of slightly more than euphemisms for womanhood) than actual minorities would be.

The apologists for the term "birther/birthing people" say that "birther/birthing people" was coined so as to avoid offending the mothers who identify as fathers.

The NYC medical official in the linked article above’s biggest mistake is her applying the term haphazardly along with the term mother, treating those terms as synonyms, with no self awareness of why one term might be used instead of the other term.

As cringeworthy and orwellian as this woke Liberal 2.0 article is, it does make a few decent points here and there which shows there might be a Militantly Moderate solution to this delicate issue that the Liberal 2.0 MSM can get behind to make everyone happy. Maybe this article's takes on this Margaret Atwood situation can provide some ideas to fuse with the USA Today's article's ideas on this Margaret Atwood situation to come up with this Militantly Moderate solution to this woman erasing issue.

It sucks donkeyball that someone like Margaret Atwood who has fought for woman's rights, and who has been a model proto liberal 2.0/liberal 2.0 for years can say one thing (which is basically correct) about how bad it is women are being erased from the lexicom of officialdom in some respects due to good intentioned but aggressive T.R.A and then proceed to have such a so called Liberal 2.0 mob come after her for not towing the paristan line and agreeing with every one their damn talking points. 

Liberal 2.0ers are a cult, if you don't agree with them one every issue and you dear to have an independent , non Liberal 2.0 view they turn on you and trash you to force you to conform.  

I won't allow this to happen much longer, and I don't give a fuck what the woketards think of me. They will be the ones who are seen as monsters by future generations and their power is tyranny is going to come to an end one day. 

The people who say 'the way Ana said it not that she said it' did the same thing they accuse Ana of doing due to the way they criticized Ana's tweet 

I will preface what I said by saying that trans person who did that shooting in 2023 should be given a pass because he'er was afraid of a future epidemic of violence against trans people so they were only going on a preemptive strike against transphobes. You hear constantly about how trans people face an epidemic of violence heading their way in the not so distant future so it only makes sense that some trans people might hear that and be afraid and decide to take matters in their own hands to stop that.  

Maybe right-wing media like the Daily Caller whose hosts have called for the extermination of Trans people that would cause trans people to act out of fear.

I am just saying this because I have OCD, paranoia and pessimism so I tend to except the extremes with political change:

I will always use the term 'women who breastfeed' or 'mothers who breasfeed' and I refuse to bow to the TRA SJWs on it. Over 90 percent (and i am being generous here) of breasfeeders are cis women /mothers and to use 'people' instead of 'mothers' or 'women' is illogical, delusional and utopian.

The 'erasing' (for lack of a more tasteful term) of "mother"and 'woman' isn't really about including FTMs and female NBs, even though it may seem that way on the surface

It's really about swiftly changing the meaning of womanhood which some TERFs see as a way to 'let men inside of it'. I don't go that far at all as TERFs do, but maybe ya'll need to reprogram those TERFs to not say the 'transgenderism allows men inside of womanhood' and to instead say something at least somewhat pro Trans instead.

This evident dehumanising around femaleness and our biology isn't about including female people who don't identify as women from related conversations, as that would truly be inclusive

In this reddit thread on the women over 30 sub (which I generally agree with at least somewhat, but I would not use their harsh TERF language or terms that they did in said thread) involved a discussion around "women who breastfeed" vs. "people who breastfeed" (with bonus comments going farther into the "it's chest-feeding territory! , Say what you will about my non trans friendly views on people using the term 'people who breastfeed' (which I try to be pragmatic, fair and leftish on), I am however outright and absolutely against people using the term 'people who chest feed'. 

In this reddit thread on the women over 30 sub,  too many women were voicing the "wrongthink" opinion, too many "correct or see where they are coming from" opinions were getting downvoted to oblivion, too many awards were going to "so called bigoted brigaders," so the mods had to not only remove everything they disagreed with, they had to post the angry sticky I posted above. Though brigading is wrong and provides all the ammo the mods need to do what they did.  BUT it is comical to think that thread was being astro-terfed. 

The mods on that women over 30 sub simply can't grasp the fact that their radical language demands are not popular at all with normies.

So to Emma Vigeland and themajorityreport youtube commentors how can I fix the above views to be more leftist where at minimum my views above (which you help me change) would move left enough to be something you 'agree to disagee with me' on, or ideally where I can get my point across above but in a left wing way (Gender critical and TERFism isn't left wing criticism of erasure, it is Alt Liberal criticism of erasure at best)