True Left

https://youtube.com/shorts/qelMhlI6f_o?feature=share

What do you get when you cross the Hindenburg, Titanic, and Chernobyl?
https://youtu.be/73DXyqW9vvE
One Unholy Turducken, The HINTANOBYL!

Where life begins is a gray area. The bible says first breath. The Quran says four months. But abortion still causes harm, and it should be treated as a medical issue like drug addiction. In our current situation, criminalization would create more problems than it would ever solve. The best way to reduce abortions is comprehensive sex education, contraception, and better childcare services. That's the real pro-life position.

Imagine these specimens saying this on horseback while they trample your crops.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CbF4mqKJotZ/
Can you say "Form square?"

The Earth may be destroyed by the Sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years, but life has existed on Earth for 4 billion years--so even if an asteroid wiped out all multi-cellular lifeforms (extremely unlikely), it is possible for them to re-evolve to the same level of complexity that exists today.

I remember saying something similar on the old forum. They would still have a whole billion years to escape the solar system.
I also mentioned a more effective way to destroy the world on the old forum.

https://youtu.be/ijFm6DxNVyI

But still it's not perfect because as the narrator says, It would only destroy life as we know it, and it wouldn't keep up with the expansion of the universe.

If by "personal freedom" you mean a person gets to do whatever they want; to whom ever they want, whenever they want, like democratic peoples, then the answer is 'no', National Socialism does not support that type of "personal freedom".

I don't even define freedom as the ability to do something. That's better defined as power. Freedom to me is the ability NOT to do something.
A slave can have power but is not free. A prisoner may be disempowered but can be free.

"There could also be confusions using 'it', I would assume you were not talking about a person if you referred to an 'it'. Even if you disagree, using they/them is in agreement with more mainstream gender-neutral language and cannot be considered in any way insulting, whereas "it" can be."

There are some who prefer It/Its pronouns for themselves. Some would say that's dehumanizing, but I see that as an opportunity to criticize anthropocentrism. Theoretically if you think of gender as a compass instead of a single spectrum, It/Its could be seen as implicitly neither masculine nor feminine (neotenous), while They/Them could be seen as implicitly both masculine and feminine (androgynous).

I've been contemplating using It/Any pronouns on myself for these and other reasons. But I would still use They/Them for most situations for the reasons you mentioned.

This could also be explored in fiction.