I read it last night. Sadly, it's just more trans-exclusionary feminism, which is what I feared. Those transphobic arguments are well known. We fundamentally disagree on definition of sexism and what justice means. I've stated the problem several times now, so will leave it here.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @janeclarejones @ingridharvold and
Janet, I may have lost something, but it seems a contradiction to me to say that you ‘believe justice means recognising difference and allowing for a negotiation in which everyone's interests are considered’ when you appears to be excluding transpeople’s views and rights.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cacrisalves @janeclarejones and
For the record, no, we are not prioritising male’s people interest above female’s people, but advocating for a broader definition of sex/gender that isn’t narrowly based on having a ‘perfect’ vagina and ‘ideal’ levels of feminine hormones...
6 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @janeclarejones @ingridharvold and
I wish you could answer that to me?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cacrisalves @janeclarejones and
What is your definition of ‘female’s people’? I wonder about that too...
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
What is your definition of female people?
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.