| FAQ |
| Members List |
| Calendar |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
| Serious Debates & News Debate and discussion about political, moral, philosophical, celebrity and news topics. |
| Register to reply Log in to reply |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#26 | ||
|
|||
|
-
|
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".
|
||
|
|
| Register to reply Log in to reply |
|
|