“Inclusive language” is all the rage these days. Or rather, it’s at the root of a whole lot of the rage these days.

On the heels of Bette Midler’s “transphobic” comments about how it’s wrong to de-feminize women and reduce them to their lady parts (comments for which Midler has since apologized because she lacks the proverbial balls that Macy Gray has), “Little Fires Everywhere” author Celeste Ng went on a little rant to dispel the notion that there’s something inherently wrong with “inclusive language” being used to systematically erase women’s innate identities:

Maybe Celeste is the one who needs to think on things.

No, Celeste. If we’re upset about “and other birthing people,” it’s because biological women are the only “birthing people” out there and it’s frankly offensive — not to mention anti-scientific — to suggest otherwise.

Old and busted: women’s empowerment.

New hotness: women’s degradation.

Sorry, honey, but people who understand and respect basic biology are not “transphobes.”

Why can’t “trans rights” activists like Celeste Ng understand that drawing distinctions between men and women doesn’t diminish trans people, but merely aligns with science? Trans women are not the same as biological women, and trans men are not the same as biological men. That’s not transphobia. That’s not bigotry. That’s just the truth, inconvenient though it may be.

Go ahead and donate all you want, Celeste. It doesn’t change the fact that you’re wrong and that the ideology you’re pushing indisputably hurts the cause of feminism (as in actual feminism) and women in general.



‘Found the racist’! Little Fires Everywhere author Celeste Ng’s ‘general rule’ about racism quickly comes back to bite her — hard

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...