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.
-
-
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @queermel
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @queermel
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski @queermel
If you would like to present an argument on how the “vast majority” of changes affects specifically nonbinary folks please do so.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski
Considering the vast majority of the language focuses on the transition between two binary sexes where before it was vague and allowed some breathing room that might actually allow some ease in at least changing one’s name on these documents, or applying to them with a nb...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @queermel @EmilyGorcenski
...gender marking? Considering before it was actually feasible to apply for these documents , but that this change, being rolled out this month, in the wake of states like CA rolling out their own new laws, makes it very difficult if not impossible? And none of that actually...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @queermel @EmilyGorcenski
...has to go against the idea that this will make it immediately difficult for binary trans people. Again, arguing that a principle motivator of this is anti-nb sentiment doesn’t actually take away from the fact that this also serves to hurt binary trans folk.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @queermel
I am not arguing that it is a motivation. I am offended by the implication that the issues faced by trans women of color are splash damage.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
And even if we are to concede that the policy was principally targeted at nonbinary folk I am not sure we should even be centering that over its impact on TWoC.
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.