Search Results: if women ruled the world

Twitter’s crusade against “hate speech” has vanquished yet another meany face. A prominent Canadian feminist says that the company flagged a tweet she wrote which meekly suggested that men aren’t women. Isn’t Twitter fun?
Meghan Murphy, editor of Canada’s leading feminist news portal, Feminist Current, was recently informed by Twitter that two of her tweets had violated the platform’s rules against “hateful conduct.”
One of the offending tweets stated that “men aren’t women,” while the other asked: “How are transwomen not men?”
This is fucking bullshit @twitter. I'm not allowed to say that men aren't women or ask questions about the notion of transgenderism at all anymore? That a multi billion dollar company is censoring BASIC FACTS and silencing people who ask questions about this dogma is INSANE pic. twitter. com/dul6iOdbaz
“This is f*cking bullshit @twitter. I'm not allowed to say that men aren't women or ask questions about the notion of transgenderism at all anymore?” Murphy tweeted. “That a multi billion dollar company is censoring BASIC FACTS and silencing people who ask questions about this dogma is INSANE.”

What ARE we allowed to say here? How tf is simply saying 'men aren't women' hateful? I am losing my goddamned mind over this. Enjoy your brave new world, sjws. Here's your fucking social justice.

— Meghan Murphy (@MeghanEMurphy) November 15, 2018
The feminist writer and commentator expressed disbelief over her “hateful” infraction in a series of follow-up tweets.

Murphy said that “trans activists” had been targeting her account for several months, and that it was clear that someone had been combing through her tweets and reporting them for “hateful conduct.”

Whether she was censured by a human or an algorithm, many on Twitter – even those who said they didn’t agree with Murphy’s views – expressed outrage that “men aren’t woman” could be labelled as hateful.

Source :

What's your definition and which of my definition fits you most (poll)?

My definitions:

Pro-choice: Don't necessary see abortion as positive, necessarily or negative. They may think it depends from case to case, but believes it's not their business and that women should be allowed to choose by themselves.

Pro-abortion: Are also for legalization of self-determined abortions, but thinks abortions can affect the society positively.

Both pro-abortionists and pro-choicers believes it's up to the woman, but pro-abortionists sees abortion as a more positive thing. E. g. less disabled and poor people in the world because they gets aborted away.

General pro-life: Are against legalization of self-determined abortions and thinks abortions in general speaking should be illegal and is immoral. But thinks some exceptions are okay like if the mother's health and life is in danger or a child is pregnant. If a child is pregnant, the parents and other adults should be held responsible.

I don't consider people who supports abortion in rape and incest cases as general pro-life.

Total pro-life: Against legalization of any kinds of abortions.

Half pro-life: Thinks abortion is okay when it's incest or rape. May also have other exception rules like general pro-lifers. They thinks other types of abortion are immoral, but some of them thinks it exists other solutions on the problem than making it illegal by law. They've often similar views on it as cheating.

#ProLife #ProChoice #Abortion

I'm general pro-life.
Why I'm Pro-Life & My Answers To Pro-Choice Arguments

I watched a British documentary called "The rise of female violence" which shows that women can also be violent and aggressive. After watching that documentary I'm wondering if the stereotype/claim: "Women are less violent and aggressive than men" is true or not. Now I'm thinking of general speaking; the main rules and not the few exceptions.

In this question I ask about women generally in this world like commoners, not only leaders as I did in a question I asked almost a year ago. #MenVsWomen #War #WomenWar #Violence