Here's an excerpt: “Some people have complained the pussyhat movement excludes women of colour - who don't necessarily have pink vaginas – and transgender women, who may not have vaginas at all. It's ignited a debate among feminists that some complain is distracting and divisive."
Distracting and divisive? More like totally insane!
Let's be honest: the pussyhat movement isn't really a women's movement at all. At best, it's a “some” women's movement, given that millions of women were formally excluded from participating simply because they are pro-life.
Now, members are apparently conflicted over the movement's name, saying it offends woman with a different-coloured vagina...or upsets men without vaginas who self-identify as women. [And CBC felt compelled to report this as news?]
Someone needs to come up with a name that accurately captures the underlying ideology driving this far-left liberal social movement; a name that ensures no member feels excluded or offended, while at the same time not relying on: (1) the proper use of the dictionary meaning of certain key words; (2) biological facts, or (3) commonsense and sound logic.
You might ask what right I have - as a man who doesn't self-identify as a woman - to even comment on this issue? Well, I'm a Canadian citizen with the right to free speech and I'm also exercising my right to self-identify as a “rational human being.” I trust you'll respect both rights; after all, we all must adhere to current social norms of political-correctness, right?
Kevin J. Arsenault