I entered this conversation to urge feminists to try to find common ground and represent each other's position fairly.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @helenstaniland
To have more productive conversations. Tedious hours on who has the right definition of 'woman' which is the whole problem
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
it's a laudable aim, but given the definition of woman matters very much, some people will spend time on it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @helenstaniland
And they are not in any way prevented by my declining to take a side.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
helen staniland Retweeted Helen Pluckrose
no, but you *have* 'taken a side'.https://twitter.com/hpluckrose/status/789932988347940872 …
helen staniland added,
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @helenstaniland
Helen Pluckrose Retweeted Helen Pluckrose
Helen Pluckrose added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
fine, and you've rated the idea that the brains of TW are like those of women. You seem to no longer be neutral.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @helenstaniland
My position of neutrality between intersecs & radfems has nothing to do with science & brains. I think you're both wrong.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @helenstaniland
But this is not an issue I'm interested in discussing. I regret doing it yesterday when trying to show various views exist.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
we all know that various views exist, what did you think you would bring that hadn't been said before?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I count a successful result as one in which one side acknowledges that the other is well-intentioned & shares cores aims
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.