I’m not even sure this is legal.https://twitter.com/moomanibe/status/1040013119014105088?s=21 …
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
I am *not disputing* that this change hurts nonbinary folks. I am disputing that it was the *principle motivation* for the change. I am also disputing that binary trans folks somehow have easy access to all these new requirements.
I think arguing it is a principle motivator doesn’t actually detract from the fact that binary trans folk will be hurt either. I also don’t think it insinuates binary trans folk have it “easier” and I’m not sure why we think we have to paint it with that sort of dichotomy.
This policy mirrors decades of pre-2015 policy language that has historically targeted binary trans women and in particular has the biggest impact on binary Black trans women and I think that reversions to that history deserve equal consideration as adaptations to new state law.
The issue with this framing is that it frames the issues of binary trans people as being directly opposed to the issues of nb folk when they’re often one in the same, and deriding one is often a means to deride another.
The conclusion in the QT was that the “vast majority” of the changes targeted nonbinary folks. That’s what I’m disputing. I’m not framing in in any way. I am disagreeing on the basis of the impact.
If you would like to present an argument on how the “vast majority” of changes affects specifically nonbinary folks please do so.
Some? Yes. Indisputably. Not arguing against that. The “vast majority?” Disagree. And argue that it’s erasure.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.