View Single Post
Old 21-04-2023, 10:48 AM #40
user104658 user104658 is offline
-
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 36,685
user104658 user104658 is offline
-
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 36,685
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn. View Post
I’m talking about people using very rare occurrences to push an agenda.
But in the process you choose to ignore the fact that just because something is "rare" doesn't mean that it should be swept aside when considering safeguarding concerns. Whether you mean it to or not, it simply comes across as not really giving a **** about women's safety in the name of "inclusivity".
user104658 is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote