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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @ambrouk @dorothyk98 and
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
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 -
In other words, we should have expand our categorisations, especially of bodies, rather than abandon our categorisations. Western societies don't design around binary, they design around men. It all needs to change, for everyone's safety and happiness.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Because people’s sexuality and identity aren’t their genitals. Full stop.
-
-
Replying to @AdmiralHip @davykind and
Sexuality and identity aren't just to do with genitals, agreed. Feminism and queer theory taught me that. But my genitals are part of what I am. Periods, pregnancy, labour and breastfeeding are definitely part of what I am. I appreciate those things matter more or less to people
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ambrouk
Except that isn’t all there is to being a woman. And that isn’t the experience for all cis women either. What about the women who can’t have children, who don’t menstruate? What about the nb or trans men that do? Gender identity is so much more than biology.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like - 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.