Your friend started this by trying to define historical transmisogyny out of existence in a patently ridiculous way ("They could all just put on pants and be immune to persecution!") So no, I think we're all the ones who are sick of this shithttps://twitter.com/msediewyatt/status/1343883386285293568 …
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect
I haven’t studied historical trans misogyny, I am not a trans woman. I studied women’s studies and I am a woman. Very different. I have no fight with trans people digging up their history, but why do we hear about it constantly when we are trying to advocate for women and girls?
11 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @msediewyatt @arthur_affect
You guys think it’s so progressive to call people TERFs and argue against sex based rights and tell us about the four witches they may have decided where actually female presenting men, when girls are being burned and trafficked every day now, for being born girls.
5 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @msediewyatt
Modern estimates are that the total ratio of convicted witches by recorded sex is 75% women 25% men, for what it's worth "Oh it was only four people" is kind of gratuitously shitty if you're actually pretending to care about a historical injustice
3 replies 1 retweet 41 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
I have never once claimed to be defending witches you absolute grandstanding egotistical wanker. I am saying that narratives get hijacked to minimise the vulnerability of people with vaginas and you are defending that. And retweeting your own tweets
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
The person who was minimizing and hijacking was @insider_sister, who started this conversation by not only *minimizing* the historical persecution of trans women but outright saying it did not exist by definition
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.