Disappointed but unsurprised to see NYT "science" pushing us further down the slippery slope of progressive antiscience nonsense. You spent years arguing that sex and gender aren't the same. Fine. So don't treat them as synonyms.https://twitter.com/NYTScience/status/1054571886598873088 …
-
-
I dunno, I think as SOON as you start talking about "gender identity" being EXCLUSIVELY performative & "a social construct" you really are denying that there are biological underpinnings. It's a blanket denial of the very existence of "trans" imo.
-
I'm not saying there isn't nuance. I'm saying that people declaring that how we choose to represent our identity is somehow proof that there is no underlying biological cause for our different choices are *always* wrong & *always* awful. From Chsitian fundies to TERFS :P
-
I'm pretty sure TERFs explicitly cling to a biological definition of sex and simply refuse to acknowledge gender. In their mind it's the same thing and the exceptions are considered crazy people.
-
Except many don't. They cling to the notion of *female* but more broadly treat maleness & masculinity as a flaw or defect. Obviously, there are different flavours, but the "social construct" nonsense is NOT limited to intersectionals.
-
All of my interactions with them have been otherwise, but I'm sure some would exist.
-
Honestly, feminism as a whole is a mess of contradictions, double standards and hypocrisy all the way down to an individual level. "Good feminists" tend to be the ones that don't take it, or themselves, too seriously.
End of conversation
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.