No Trans people (that I’ve seen here) are arguing women do not exist or that their lived experience is not real. For Trans people, these are things the Times letter puts up for debate. The existence, identity, personhood of Trans people is not up for academic (or any) debate.
-
-
Of course, there are outliers, and misogyny is incredibly real. But the hundreds (now thousands) of academics who have signed or affirmed the Times letter have gone on record. To be clear, their transphobia, is on record.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Hang on, the original Times letter has accumulated more signatures? I didn't realise it was an open letter, and I haven't seen it circulated (though that's probably because of how I curate my timeline).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Volcanologist @davykind
It has been circulated and championed and affirmed by many more academics. The original tweet where it was shared, for example, now has 579 retweets and 1320 likes (some condemnation in the replies but also lots of support). The original signatories haven’t changed.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I have been shocked by the amount of public support the original letter has gotten. And, of course, I am also glad for the even greater support I’ve seen for the counter-letters. But I think we all have lots more work to do to create inclusive spaces for Trans people in academia.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
I am reluctant to comment because this is such a loaded issue. I dont think the signatories are denying the existence of trans people. I think they are agreeing that both sex and gender are complex and there are multiple ways to talk about it.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I wish that “sex and gender are complex” is what I saw in that letter. I saw just the opposite. The letter (and other public writing of the contributors) argues that biological sex is undeniable and associates biological sex in an unnuanced way with genitalia and chromosomes.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
I see the letter (and other writing of the contributors) as denying gender as a category distinct from sex. As someone who has taught queer theory for many years, I am in favor of complex discussions of all these things. I see the letter as shutting down those conversations.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
And let us all be clear here, TERFs are another entry point for white supremacy and please don't tell me academics can't uphold white supremacy. That is so laughable.https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1088180524504571908.html …
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @dorothyk98 @Jessifer and
Actually the lesbian-shouldn't-prefer-vaginas thing sounds like an "incel" (involuntary celebacy) argument, which is an unfortunate twist because incel arguments are associated with white supremacy and violence against women.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
It’s not an incel argument. At all. The point is that it reduces a person’s identity to their genitalia and that is dehumanizing. No one is forcing her to date a trans woman here but it’s really a roundabout way of denying trans and nb people their gender identities.
-
-
Replying to @AdmiralHip @ambrouk and
I honestly don’t understand. Why is it dehumanising to be categorised by sex any more than it is to be categorised by age or disability? We use categories to help organise society to keep people safe and prevent discrimination e.g. medical treatment, accessibility, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @davykind @AdmiralHip and
I'm reading Invisible Women about the gender data gap and there are many illustrations that if we were *more* specific about sex and gender we could design the world better for bodies and lives. The world is designed for default man and that doesn't help anyone.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.