Here’s the central paradox at the root of “tolerance” and “diversity”:
Are advocates of “tolerance” and “diversity” willing to “tolerate” stuff like FGM, slavery, “honor” killings, “ritual” slaughter of children based on superstition, etc?
In other words: should humanity “tolerate” the systematic abrogation of “human rights”, as such? Do the perpetrators get a “free pass” merely because a given atrocity happens to be regarded as “traditional”, or “part of their culture”, etc.?
If so, then the question to ask is: Exactly how long does it take for something to transform from a “crime against humanity” to a “cherished tradition?”
For example: in many cultures, the “traditonal role” inflicted on those unlucky enough to have been born female involves not being “allowed” to learn to read, being forced to comply with “modesty”-related dress codes (“Hijab”, for example) — and the risk of being “honor-killed” by your closest male relative:
Undoubtedly, there are at least a few SJW assholes who would regard failure to mollycoddle and celebrate all of the above, as problematic. (For example: I personally believe that women and girls should be “permitted” to learn to read, and that killing them does NOTHING to restore the “honor” of their nearest male relative).
Quite frankly, I am more than willing to recognize the fact that my advocacy of female literacy/contempt for “honor”-killings etc. represents a form of “cultural genocide”, in that many cultures have “traditionally” treated their female subjects as effectively subhuman.
Fine. The mere fact that I recognize such a concept as “fundamental human rights” neccesarily means that I am also guilty of “cultural imperialism” against collectives who “traditionally” engage in the suppression/torture/slaughter of their female subject-populations.
I’m totally cool with that fact, actually.