It really is perilously close to a conversion narrative if you suggest that lesbians ought to be open to the idea of having sex with people with penises. Sexual attraction is (almost always) embodied. It's not directed at another person's perception of their own identity.https://twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1137624393251733504 …
-
which is what the article is doing when it identifies the penis as a relevant matter. Now, there are people who will say that focusing on the genitals in sexual attraction is objectification, but I don't see that surfaced here and those people can fuck off.
Yes, I understand how the argument by redefinition is going to work. But even if I accept it, which I don't, it doesn't matter. Once you grant that gay men, for example, ought to be open to vaginas in their sex life, you've made the first move in a conversion narrative. 1/
-
-
The fact that you might turn around & say, Ah yes, but it's not a conversion argument, coz we're talking abt trans men's vaginas, we're not saying gay men should become straight men, doesn't alter the fact you've made the first move (i.e, that we can change genitalia preference).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Again, don't think that's what's being said here. And I agree it is something that does get said. Think you're only following half the circle of the redefinition and then are equivocating on the redefinition in the normal language cases.
-
Twitter isn't the best for this conversation, because I don't really understand your argument. Send it by DM if you feel inclined, because I'm curious. My DMs aren't open, but I'll look out for yours.
-
Sent some. I do need to dash now though. Can pick this up later.
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.