Falling down a rabbit hole of amici curiae on the docket for Bostock v. Clayton County and it's not at all surprising that a number of religious groups are using the usual trans-exclusionary talking points. These arguments aren't made in isolation. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1618.html …
-
-
Nope; the open letter addressed some of the reasons why, e.g.:pic.twitter.com/YAPmq4765W
-
I feel like this image is not tackling the meat and potatoes of the paper. Like it's not grappling with the parts of it I found interesting. It's of philosophical interest why we should permit some socially constructed identities to be porous and not permit others.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Not only not good, not even interesting (if otherwise bad)!
- End of conversation
New conversation -
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.