Remember that "Believe All Women" movement that came out of nowhere in 2018?

[JGalt]

What happened to that? It was an offshoot of the #MeToo movement that sprang up during the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination process. But then it suddenly disappeared in 2020, when presidential candidate Joe Biden's sexual assault allegations came to light.

Believe women - Wikipedia

Which brings us to 2023: We're now loving in a time when the "Believe All Women" movement seemingly never existed. The progressine left is seemingly unable to provide a definition of the word "Woman", and instead, is using the word to define people who aren't really women.

How the hell did we get from there to here?

“Where are the rights of girls and women in all this debate? Why are women being erased? Why is the word woman now an offensive term? When did we allow biological males to dominate women's sport and wreck it irrevocably?” That is a good point. When did they sneak this in where all of a sudden these were the new rules without anyone else agreeing to it? It just became the new standard."




Standing by for "But...but...Trump" in 3...2...1...

 

[candycorn]

Of course you're lying about that.

"Believe women" was what it was called. Of course it is predicated on the woman not having had a distinct history of shading the truth. You leave that part out.

Now say something snide and outrageous; we all know it's the only thing you capable of

 

[fncceo]

Of course it is predicated on the woman not having had a distinct history of shading the truth.

Actually, a woman's past is off limits for cross examination in cases of sexual assault or race as an insinuation that "she was asking for it".

The fact that a woman, or a man, being sexually promiscuous in the past holds no bearing on the present charges of assault means that a woman, or a man's, being less than truthful in the past has no bearing on their present veracity

 

[JGalt]

Of course you're lying about that.

"Believe women" was what it was called. Of course it is predicated on the woman not having had a distinct history of shading the truth. You leave that part out.

Now say something snide and outrageous; we all know it's the only thing you capable of

I know that's what it was called, that's in the Wikipedia link I provided.

Your snide, outrageous comment is duly noted. Now tell me this: Was Christine Blasey Ford to be believed?

 

[toobfreak]

"Believe women" was what it was called. Of course it is predicated on the woman not having had a distinct history of shading the truth.

Welp, that definitely leaves both you and Hillary Clinton out!

 

[AZrailwhale]

Actually, a woman's past is off limits for cross examination in cases of sexual assault or race as an insinuation that "she was asking for it".

The fact that a woman, or a man, being sexually promiscuous in the past holds no bearing on the present charges of assault means that a woman, or a man's, being less than truthful in the past has no bearing on their present veracity

Except a past of lying cast doubts on the current truthfulness of someone. Do you trust someone who has lied to you in the past? I know I don’t; when it comes to honesty, my rule is once burned, forever shy.

 

[MarathonMike]

There are plenty of women coming forward about how they were repeatedly raped on Epstein Island by very rich and famous men. But for some reason, the Democrat controlled Media give them nearly zero attention. Huh, imagine that.

 

[fncceo]

Except a past of lying cast doubts on the current truthfulness of someone. Do you trust someone who has lied to you in the past? I know I don’t; when it comes to honesty, my rule is once burned, forever shy.

Unfortunately, in a court of law, only a previous conviction can bear upon a presumption of guilt or innocence... a previous accusation is inadmissible.

Even a past conviction for prostitution can't be entered in defense of a rape allegation.

So, it follows that an accusation that the witness has lied about sexual assault in the past should also be inadmissible.

 

[Lord Long Rod]

Actually, a woman's past is off limits for cross examination in cases of sexual assault or race as an insinuation that "she was asking for it".

The fact that a woman, or a man, being sexually promiscuous in the past holds no bearing on the present charges of assault means that a woman, or a man's, being less than truthful in the past has no bearing on their present veracity

It is not always off limits.