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 …
-
Show this thread
-
How this works: 1. "OK fine biological sex is real but sex and gender aren't the same. Gender is the sex of your brain." 2. "How very dare you conflate sex with genitalia, think of the transpeople!" 3. "Well acksheüllly, biological sex isn't real. Read a book."
4 replies 14 retweets 52 likesShow this thread -
And the nice thing is these three theses can peacefully coexist in SocJus spaces as long as it is clear that the more moderate (EG sane, reality-based) ones are being espoused to cover for the crazier shit. It's progressive gender-taqiya, really.
1 reply 4 retweets 20 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Banned_Ali
& it's worse than the "moderates" realise bc the denial of "biological sex" *must* include the denial of sexual preference & gender identity. It essentially says that everything is performative & everything is a choice. That's really shitty & we've fought for decades against it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gray_DM
I disagree that those things necessarily follow from the denial of biological sex. It's still possible to assume all those other things are caused by rigid, unchanging brain structures rather than choice and performativity. That said I have seen some of the nuttier transactivists
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Banned_Ali @Gray_DM
.. insist that people who don't want to fuck them are transphobes (which is ironically a complete contradiction of all that consent business) or that gay kids(feminine boys or butch girls) are "well ackshűally" trans.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Banned_Ali
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gray_DM @Banned_Ali
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gray_DM
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Banned_Ali
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
All of my interactions with them have been otherwise, but I'm sure some would exist.
-
-
Replying to @Banned_Ali
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.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.