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/ …
-
-
Currently, you are just arguing to restrict the objective meaning to gonads (almost no-one aegues gonads are not objectively real & bimodal. The whole concept of trans relies on it) and ignore the rest of relevant biology. That will fail as trans people will continue to exist.
-
There are only two sexual reproductive classes, male and female, and the entire history of the male-class exploiting the female-class has occurred along those lines. Women being infertile (e.g.) did not enable them to opt out of the oppressed class.
-
It matters that women be able to make those statements and have them mean something. It's the entire core of feminism.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
So there's no stable meaning for "gender" and no stable meaning for "woman"? Do you even accept that there is a stable meaning for "female" and "male"?
-
See thread. I'm not going over it again. Also article. I wrote that so as not to keep having this discussion.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It feels a bit like age of consent argument. Ranges in the west from (recently) from 13 to 18 or so. But got people suddenly essentialism it the second they are outraged or decide harm has been done.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I assume by the time it's that messy you get a bistable distribution, yet we still have to put a social either/or on a messy spectrum with some sympathy.
Thanks. 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.