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 …
-
Show this thread
-
Pretty sure somebody published a philosophy paper floating something similar to this idea a while back. (content warning: reading this is genuinely bad for your health)pic.twitter.com/1Mjkz92SOd
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
-
-
Replying to @nathanoseroff @BlueLorikeet
You didn't think the Tuvel paper was good? Why not?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LevelOAnalysis @BlueLorikeet
Nope; the open letter addressed some of the reasons why, e.g.:pic.twitter.com/YAPmq4765W
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @nathanoseroff @BlueLorikeet
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
If you deadname people, if you use language to describe a group members of the group have made clear is wrong, you've got nothing worth hearing. Also, no one who does not know trans people should be writing this stuff. Cause it's all filled with total ignorance of trans people.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I feel like your comment does not suggest a broad minded curiosity about the world and your own fallibility.
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.