no I'm not, I have expressed no view (here) about the merits of option A or B
-
Empathy is good. Also for women in prison who have been victim of sexual assault whose PTSD is set off if male prisoners housed w them. For female students who lose out on athletic scholarship because male bodies run faster...
I just mean it's "your Option" as in you are putting it on the table, so I'd like you to define it. Is it a thing (in which case what kind of thing) or is it a language game, for the purpose of an assumed greater good?
The question is does option B put together two sets of people "some women" + "some not women" and call the new category "women" (why? for what end?)...... For muslim woman who can't use women only swim if ppl w male bodies also there. For young lesbians being told their sexual orientation is bigoted & to get over not wanting male partners. I agree gender dysphoria is real, but so are impacts on women if gender id overrides sex
-
-
I don’t know why you are rehearsing these arguments with me. I haven’t expressed a smidgen of disagreement with them. I have asked what practical difference to the feminist cause, away from these edge cases you mention, in fields of education, tax etc., adopting option B makes.
-
Because (as I understand it) the argument you are making for Option B (let's fudge the clear category of sex and call it gender identity) is one of compassion to individuals with personal vulnerabilities
- 5 more replies
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.