Trans people can't and #WontBeErased by attempts to define them out of existence. Presidents, however, can have that label removed. You'll need to vote, reasonable & compassionate Americans.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
I understand the US government is going about defining man and woman based on a framework of biological sex. What alternatives should be used to not ‘erase' trans people that are coherent, material, objective and useful in law?
4 replies 0 retweets 29 likes -
Replying to @lecanardnoir
I'm not even sure what that question means. There's seldom a need to define the sex of someone in law and when there is, it usually comes down to some biological difference which can be accounted for in law.
6 replies 2 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
In the UK, sex is a protected characteristic that enables women, for example, to exclude men from certain protected spaced (prisons, rape crisis centres etc). Such protections require a defintion of what a man and a woman is. This is quite fundamental, no?
1 reply 0 retweets 22 likes -
Replying to @lecanardnoir
No, they don't. One can recognise the reality that trans people exist and that, in some areas, like sport and prisons, their rights and inclusion need to be considered in a class of their own. We wrote this about it.https://areomagazine.com/2017/09/27/an-argument-for-a-liberal-and-rational-approach-to-transgender-rights-and-inclusion/ …
3 replies 2 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Of course trans people exist, but I suspect their many experiences, motives and presentations do not enable a unified, useful defintion. On the other hand, you appear to not want to recognise the objective, material existence of women? I hope I am wrong.
2 replies 0 retweets 22 likes -
Replying to @lecanardnoir
I sent you an essay. I recognise the objective material reality that biological sex is bimodal in teams of reproductive systems, yes, but also that gender comes from a variety of other biological aspects like brains, hormones, genetics etc.
3 replies 2 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @lecanardnoir
Andy, are you sure you aren't doubling down a little too hard here? Having known you through skeptical stuff for years and Helen's views widely disseminated and dissected the last few weeks.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @theedwardian81 @HPluckrose
I know, I am surprised I am here too right now. The disputable concepts of gender appear to come through various fashionable nonsense ideologies of the various pomo-style theories. So, I am just fascinated as to where this might lead?
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
If Helen is at the forefront of combatting fashionable and vague use of pseudo-academic language which escapes pinning down through defintion, then I am flabbergasted that ‘gender’ can be thrown around without care as to strict, coherent defintion.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Sorry! I don't control definitions!
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.