And some TW 'pass'. Hair can be unconvincingly dyed, and some TW do not pass. It would also be rude to point this out in many contexts, but it remains true. In some contexts, the difference will matter.
-
-
Replying to @unwitod @arthur_affect and
Things can be unconvincingly "natural" too- peeps have dark brows and light hair, it happens. And, regardless, if someone asks "Who is X" and you go "the blonde one" -cuz that's the "truth" -even tho they now *literally have blue hair* -you are not being truthfull now are you.
1 reply 0 retweets 20 likes -
Replying to @MadAlice10_6_2 @arthur_affect and
Why would I do that though? I've repeatedly said that reference to these things - e.g whether your hair is dyed or not / whether you're male or not - are context dependent. It doesn't follow that therefore there is no distinction nor that it could never matter This is so simple
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @unwitod @arthur_affect and
It's the patina "unconvincing change" and "the truth of DNA". Your need to make the distinction What if that trans woman is literally XX, and you're wrong about the direction she is taking relative to her biological, DNA "truth". Is the distinction relevant anymore?
1 reply 0 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @MadAlice10_6_2 @arthur_affect and
What the hell are you talking about? An XX woman is not a TW. I see you're still unable to grasp to point that the difference matters only in certain contexts. Do you think I spend my time trying to 'out' TW? I'm no more likely to do that than go dyed blonde spotting
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @unwitod @arthur_affect and
An XX woman CAN BE a TW -that's the issue with "biological truth" -it's not binary, and it's murky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome … If not even the most basic assumption, XX=phenotypically female, is not always true, how can anyone insist sex is immutable from DNA?
2 replies 2 retweets 41 likes -
Replying to @MadAlice10_6_2 @unwitod and
You cannot argue generalities from things that, if they apply at all, apply to a tiny fraction of 1%.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
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
We don't say humans have a spectrum of fingers cos some people have polydactyly. Scientists have accepted definitions. There are TWO sexes and TWO gametes. That is a BINARY.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @dreamygirl202 @MadAlice10_6_2 and
Okay see the reason we don't say these things is that it hasn't come up and people don't try to restrict the rights of people with different numbers of fingers or scapegoat them for societal ills It is true though
2 replies 1 retweet 10 likes
"We don't talk like this about [thing that isn't a locus of oppression, or thing that is one that tragically few people care about] so it must be made up just for trans stuff"
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.