And even in that situation, you would have actually had eyesight up until that point. You wouldn't have been forced to pretend you have eyesight because what you actually are is so unspeakable it wasn't possible for you to name yourself as it, the more accurate analogy.
-
-
Replying to @onyxaminedlife @Nymphomachy
T*RFs when confronted about this will usually try to reduce male privilege to brute biological facts like "greater physical strength" or "can't get pregnant" or whatever
2 replies 0 retweets 22 likes -
And when you point out these aren't even CLOSE to evenly distributed among "male" and "female" people they get all mad and accuse you of quibbling over details
3 replies 0 retweets 22 likes -
I guess it comes back to that Atlantic article; if your father dies before your transition, there is privilege in being the AMAB offspring of a duke.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
I mean things like duchies generally have succession battles even when there ISN'T any kind of complicated question like what to do when the heir apparent transitions; the idea that their doing so would change the outcome without question is almost certainly fictive
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Historically, yeah, but I'm not sure there have been too many hotly contested succession disputes in the last couple centuries, at least on a sub-national level. Some of the deposed royal houses are all het up about their own shit, though.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mssilverstein @Nymphomachy and
I just find it really weird when people bring up primogeniture as evidence of AMAB privilege when the two longest reigning and arguably most powerful monarchs in global history have been cis women (Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria)
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @maidensblade @Nymphomachy and
I mean, it's definitely not a substantive argument. But those are both fairly unlikely coincidences, both in terms of lacking brothers, and then just living a really long time afterward. And I'm not sure either of them was particularly powerful.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mssilverstein @maidensblade and
Queen Victoria reigned at a time when the British Empire itself was at a peak of wealth and power so she's "most powerful" in that sense but the theme of her reign was having to balance asserting her authority with the growing power of Parliament and private business interests
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @arthur_affect @mssilverstein and
So yeah "most powerful" is one of those things you have to qualify Victoria had a lot more physical wealth than Augustus Caesar, after all, who never even used a flush toilet - that's just how the passage of time and technological growth works
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
But Caesar could just like order someone killed and it would just be done By Victoria's time you weren't allowed to do that anymore
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @maidensblade and
Yeah, I mean, she had a lot of influence, but it's not really clear that she could ever get anywhere in direct opposition to parliament, and would be marginalized very quickly if she tried. Not (only) on account of being a woman, but in the long list of global monarchs?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mssilverstein @arthur_affect and
King Salman probably has more wealth and certainly more legal power, though he's also elderly and somewhat off-stage. When he dies, Mohammad bin Salman will certainly become the most powerful monarch in the 21st century.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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.