Skip to content
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • Moments Moments Moments, current page.

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
WomensLibFront's profile
WoLF
WoLF
WoLF
@WomensLibFront

Tweets

WoLF

@WomensLibFront

Unapologetically a #radicalfeminist, women-only organization: we are biological females who survived. Dedicated to the total liberation of women. #WomenStandUp

womensliberationfront.org
Joined May 2014

Tweets

  • © 2021 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. WoLF‏ @WomensLibFront 19 Jun 2020

      WHY THE HARRIS SUPREME COURT DECISION IS NOT A WIN FOR WOMEN, NOR IS IT NARROW: We've seen people celebrating the Stephens v. Harris SC opinion (sub nom Bostock), asserting it was decided on narrow grounds and preserved the biological meaning of sex. Here’s why we disagree. 1/

      5 replies 26 retweets 56 likes
      Show this thread
    2. WoLF‏ @WomensLibFront 19 Jun 2020

      We stated in our brief in Harris and elsewhere that discrimination based on homosexuality is discrim. based on sex. This thread is primarily about our opposition to “transgender status” established in Harris, and we refer to the decision as “Harris” to make that distinction. 2/

      1 reply 2 retweets 16 likes
      Show this thread
    3. WoLF‏ @WomensLibFront 19 Jun 2020

      THE COURT’S REASONING ON TRANS IS EXTREMELY BROAD AND VAGUE: “[I]t is impossible to discriminate against a person for being... or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.” To characterize this as limited is more aspirational than it is rational. 3/

      1 reply 2 retweets 16 likes
      Show this thread
    4. WoLF‏ @WomensLibFront 19 Jun 2020

      THE DECISION IS NOT BASED ON NONCONFORMITY. It’s based on whether people “identify as” “transgender,” meaning you're male but “identify as” female or vice versa. P. 23. The Court gives no clue WHY “identifying as” a sex you’re not deserves any official status whatsoever. 4/

      1 reply 2 retweets 21 likes
      Show this thread
    5. WoLF‏ @WomensLibFront 19 Jun 2020

      THE COURT’S STATEMENT ABOUT SEX IS NONBINDING DICTA. Obiter dicta is a "judicial comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but one that is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential ([but] it may be considered persuasive)." Black's LawDict. 5/

      1 reply 2 retweets 16 likes
      Show this thread
    6. WoLF‏ @WomensLibFront 19 Jun 2020

      ...Employer argued sex is only the biological distinction between male and female; Stephens argued sex encompasses "norms concerning gender identity." But ultimately the Court said: "nothing in our approach to these cases turns on the outcome of the parties’ debate." (p.5) 6/

      1 reply 2 retweets 17 likes
      Show this thread
    7. WoLF‏ @WomensLibFront 19 Jun 2020

      ...Lower courts are thus free to define sex as a matter of "identity." Nothing in the Sup. Ct. opinion discourages or prohibits this, because it explicitly marked its "assumption" that sex "refer[s] only to biological distinctions between male and female" as nonbinding dicta. 7/

      2 replies 2 retweets 17 likes
      Show this thread
    8. WoLF‏ @WomensLibFront 19 Jun 2020

      THE COURT’S STATEMENT ABOUT SEX IS THEREFORE TOOTHLESS. At the same time, even if a lower court defines sex accurately as the distinction between male and female, it can't disregard the Sup. Ct. holding that "being transgender"/"transgender status" merits legal recognition. 8/

      1 reply 2 retweets 17 likes
      Show this thread
    9. WoLF‏ @WomensLibFront 19 Jun 2020

      THE COURT’S REASONING IS FIRMLY GROUNDED IN STEREOTYPES. The only clues the Court gives of what "transgender status" means are (1) superficial gender-roles and stereotypes concerning physical presentation, and (2) identification (which is circular and explains nothing). 9/

      1 reply 2 retweets 17 likes
      Show this thread
      WoLF‏ @WomensLibFront 19 Jun 2020

      THE COURT RULED IT'S DISCRIMINATORY NOT TO TREAT A MAN AS A WOMAN under sex-based policies if he "identifies as transgender." Stephens "wrote a letter [saying he] planned to 'live and work... as a woman.'" His employer saw this as "a man dressed up as a woman." (6 Cir. p.40) 10/

      2:49 PM - 19 Jun 2020
      • 2 Retweets
      • 18 Likes
      • CorrienteCanta unparalleledserpent ♀ 🟥Hb鉛筆 ThinkBlackWoman HunterGatherer🟥 Ariti 🤐🏁 jazzmo Boring Liberal Joe Lubas
      2 replies 2 retweets 18 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. WoLF‏ @WomensLibFront 19 Jun 2020

          ....US courts have upheld sex-based dress codes. Media and ACLU lawyers falsely implied that Stephens brought a challenge to the legality of dress codes. But the Sup. Ct. confirmed this is false: they never attempted to argue all men should be allowed to wear dresses. (p. 31) 11/

          1 reply 3 retweets 15 likes
          Show this thread
        3. WoLF‏ @WomensLibFront 19 Jun 2020

          ONLY BY PRESERVING THE “WOMAN” STEREOTYPE CAN MEN CLAIM TO “LIVE AS WOMEN” OR “IDENTIFY AS TRANSGENDER.” If sex stereotypes did not exist, Stephens would have no grounds on which to "identify as" a woman. 12/

          1 reply 4 retweets 27 likes
          Show this thread
        4. WoLF‏ @WomensLibFront 19 Jun 2020

          ...Women must still comply with dress codes even if restrictive and sexualized. Jepperson v. Harrah's, 9th Cir. 2006. Likewise the Sup. Ct. embraces gendered expectations: a man can “live...as a woman” if he "presents as" a woman, by following the women's dress code. (P.3,15) 13/

          1 reply 3 retweets 16 likes
          Show this thread
        5. WoLF‏ @WomensLibFront 19 Jun 2020

          ...Some commenters claim lower courts can't ignore sex in questions about female-only intimate spaces or athletics. There is no such mandate in the Harris opinion. All we know is that employers must grant some exemptions from sex-based rules if he claims transgender identity. 14/

          1 reply 2 retweets 16 likes
          Show this thread
        6. WoLF‏ @WomensLibFront 19 Jun 2020

          THE OPINION IMPLIES SEX AT LEAST SOMETIMES IS DETERMINED BY IDENTITY. It cites uncritically the concept of a man "living as a woman," and "identif[ying] as female" by "presenting as" a woman via clothing. This is the only clue it gives to what "being transgender" means. 15/

          1 reply 2 retweets 17 likes
          Show this thread
        7. WoLF‏ @WomensLibFront 19 Jun 2020

          …Thus, the Court declared men can undertake "traits or actions" as minimal as fashion choice, which enable him to "identify as female." The court may not have blurted out "Aimee Stephens is a woman" but nothing stops lower courts from taking that leap. 16/

          1 reply 3 retweets 17 likes
          Show this thread
        8. WoLF‏ @WomensLibFront 19 Jun 2020

          THE HARRIS RULING EQUATES APPLES & ORANGES. The expectation a man is heterosexual is a stereotype about his sex w. no bearing on job performance or conditions. P. 9-10. But sex (whether you’re male or female) is NOT a mere stereotype, and it DOES bear on job conditions. 17/

          1 reply 2 retweets 15 likes
          Show this thread
        9. WoLF‏ @WomensLibFront 19 Jun 2020

          …This is why Title VII allows "a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise." 42 USC 2000e-2. Examples upheld include treating sexually abused kids, janitors (showers) & ob-gyn nursing. 18/

          1 reply 2 retweets 14 likes
          Show this thread
        10. WoLF‏ @WomensLibFront 19 Jun 2020

          …Further, being homosexual or bisexual is a fact about one’s desire and behavior; employers do not participate in it. But under Harris, "being transgender" or "living as a woman" requires employers, coworkers, & customers to participate in someone's identity. 19/

          1 reply 3 retweets 21 likes
          Show this thread
        11. WoLF‏ @WomensLibFront 19 Jun 2020

          ...Some claim the Ct. said nothing about what Title VII requires employers to do to recognize an employee's "transgender status." Yet we know, at a minimum, an employee has a Title VII claim unless employer lets him dress in female-typical clothes and refers to him as woman. 20/

          1 reply 2 retweets 15 likes
          Show this thread
        12. WoLF‏ @WomensLibFront 19 Jun 2020

          EVEN IF THE RULING CAN BE DESCRIBED AS LIMITED, IT WILL HAVE FAR-REACHING EFFECTS. The court chose not to decide related issues but lower courts need not wait. They'll decide issues citing the language in the majority opinion, which is extremely stark. 21/

          1 reply 3 retweets 17 likes
          Show this thread
        13. WoLF‏ @WomensLibFront 19 Jun 2020

          …Issues already bubbling up from lower courts, state laws, and agency regulations include bona fide occupational qualifications, women's athletics, women's prisons, women's shelters, and bathroom and shower access. Now all must somehow recognize "transgender status." 22/

          1 reply 2 retweets 17 likes
          Show this thread
        14. WoLF‏ @WomensLibFront 19 Jun 2020

          ...It is not uncommon for the Supreme Court to issue opinions that confuse the lower courts and wreak havoc for years, sometimes over a decade, before someone convinces the Court it needs to step in and stop the bleeding. Meanwhile women and girls will lose privacy & rights. 23/

          2 replies 2 retweets 22 likes
          Show this thread
        15. WoLF‏ @WomensLibFront 19 Jun 2020

          We certainly hope our predictions turn out to be wrong. For more, please watch three of WoLF’s board members discussing our concerns about the “transgender status” Harris decision. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_9NHx6IBXU&t=448s … 24/24

          1 reply 3 retweets 21 likes
          Show this thread
        16. End of 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.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2021 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Cookies
        • Ads info