[Cont.]
"Advocates of identity politics are demanding that white writers stop creating fictional characters who are different from their own race, gender or sexual orientation."

Obviously the next move in the goalpost-shifting leftist creeping agenda will be the relatively small jump which takes this idea from applying only to 'fiction' to also applying to 'non-fiction' as well;

- Once you get used to this first baby step of course

It will create a larger blanket of 'news censorship' where only 'qualified and approved people' will have the privilege to speak to the masses on certain topics'.

Take these articles:

Islamic State supporter not required to undergo deradicalisation, lawyer says
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-01/islamic-state-supporter-not-required-to-undergo-deradicalisation/11662712

Do you think a girl by the name of 'Claire Campbell' will be allowed to report on a story regarding female Muslim member of Islamic State?

The writer is not a Muslim or immigrant so will not be allowed to comment on a story where the accused is a Muslim or possibly an immigrant.

Police to review policies as footage emerges of bikie attacking child sex offender in watch house
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-05/cctv-footage-surfaces-of-bikie-bashing-child-sex-offender/11671574

Again, the writer 'Camron Slessor' is not a Muslim or immigrant so will not be allowed to comment on the story where the victim is a Muslim or possibly an immigrant.

It just removes the legitimacy over who is and who isn't allowed to tell you things, thus forcing you to rely on the approved opinion givers that are 'permitted' or 'authorised' to do so.

FYI, the articles chosen here were to again show how the whole world is totally full of crap.

Article 1: Will the admitted female IS member who was acquitted now move to sue for wrongful imprisonment?

Article 2: Will the Muslim who raped 10 year old girl in public toilet multiple times now be awarded some sort of deal or sympathy for not being protected by others in the showers?

- Going further with the baby-steps of that particular agenda:

Pedophiles call for same rights as homosexuals
http://www.thenigerianvoice.com/movie/120206/pedophiles-call-for-same-rights-as-homosexuals.html

TEDx speaker argues that pedophilia should be accepted as 'an unchangeable sexual orientation'
http://www.metroweekly.com/2018/07/tedx-speaker-argues-that-pedophilia-should-be-accepted-as-an-unchangeable-sexual-orientation/

I suppose equality and the new non-dominant privilege inevitably conflict. Which is to prevail ? Privilege for some but not others ? Or privilege for nobody - anybody can write about anything ?

Or, taken to its absurd conclusion, would the non-Gramscian principle of equal rights instead require that a non-white person can't write about white people ? Women (etc.) can't write about men (etc.) ? Somebody born since, World War II, can't write about anything or anybody before the War ? Or does this sound just too ridiculous ?

Eventually, nobody can write about anything but themselves ? Or read either - and therefore, the prohibition against reading anything except what they themselves have written ? i.e. about themselves ?

Too loony.

Joe

Then in the UK a man applied for a job advertised for a woman.
He said I identify as a woman and he got the job.
Some time later another woman employee complained he lived as a man.
coaching boys football and drinking with the dads.
Called into bosses office he stated, I identify as a woman 9am to 5pm
Mon to Friday. He kept the job.

You see the UK has gone quite mad since they bent over backwards to
accept the moslem's sharia requirements, logic went out the window.

Bazz,

So, conflict between men and women ? Between men who claim to be women, and women ?

Absolutely crazy. Gramscianism in action, marching through the institutions of society.

Joe