It's more about, in this case, how he's openly sexist since that's what this alliance seems to be against. But either way that's a classic false binary. There's no reason they cant provide aid for both groups at the same time, it doesn't take away from either group to do that. This wasn't even much additional funding, it was a policy oversight thing who's stated goal decidedly wasn't "care more about women than disabled people".

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world -5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

That's true I suppose. His motivation does not appear to be altruistic but if it was a case of diverting limited funds, I can see his excuse not to fund this being reasonable.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Oh good, so you agree that his excuse is unreasonable then! I'm glad we had this little discussion.

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Yes, thank you for the polite discourse.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I can see his excuse not to fund this being reasonable.

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." -MayaAngelou

I believe you.