You cannot argue generalities from things that, if they apply at all, apply to a tiny fraction of 1%.
-
-
Replying to @fletcherkathy8 @unwitod and
If you have an exception to your 1s and 0s, you no longer have a binary, by default, and you cannot make binary rules for it, by default. Saying xx = phenotypically female is binary, and it's wrong. You can only say xx ≈ phenotypically female. And some TW will be xx.
6 replies 0 retweets 55 likes -
Replying to @MadAlice10_6_2 @fletcherkathy8 and
You have - ONCE AGAIN - conflated intersex and trans. Intersex orgs and people keep asking you not to, but you don't seem to care.
4 replies 0 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @unwitod @fletcherkathy8 and
I have *not* conflated intersex people with trans people. I said that there are intersex people who are trans. That is a fact. Pretending trans intersex people don't exist, cuz it messes up your DNA=truth hypothesis, helps nobody -especially not intersex people.
1 reply 2 retweets 50 likes -
Replying to @MadAlice10_6_2 @fletcherkathy8 and
I'm saying that intersex people's situation is distinctly different to trans people in general, and shouldn't be appropriated. HT for XX male syndrome at puberty, for e.g., is not the same as HT for a TM. It is a response to an underlying biological condition. Do better
5 replies 3 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @unwitod @MadAlice10_6_2 and
Aaaand here's the whole point of the challenge to the idea of biological essentialism "Person A gets to have HRT to change their body in ways that make them happier and function better because their body is actually wrong Person B doesn't because their body is fine"
2 replies 4 retweets 63 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @unwitod and
Person A gets opiates on prescription because they are in pain. Person B doesn’t because they just like the buzz. It’s so unfair!
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @Shatterface @unwitod and
Oh are we gonna start talking about how awesome and successful gatekeeping drug access has been as a policy, and the totally unbiased and compassionate ways doctors make judgments about "drug-seeking" behavior
1 reply 3 retweets 70 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @unwitod and
And again with the Gish-gallop. Do you think people should be entitled to free opiates for recreational purposes? Who should pay for them? Should we give them to kids like you want to do with puberty blockers and dildos?
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Shatterface @unwitod and
That's not what "Gish gallop" means And no one has proposed making estradiol available to buy in bulk in the supermarket, although the analogy of getting high on hormones is stupid to begin with
2 replies 1 retweet 64 likes
I am in support of recreational cannabis, though, and a general rethinking of policy on "recreational" drugs because the one we have doesn't work It's widely agreed the reason research on psychotropic meds has gone in circles for a decade is anything promising is too "abusable"
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Shatterface and
Even Prozac got hit with that criticism ("You've got people who don't hit all the diagnostic criteria for depression getting Prozac scrips just to feel better") *Prozac*, which hardly sends you flying into the heavens to meet God God forbid people want to feel better
4 replies 3 retweets 61 likes -
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.