The peer-reviewed research or even the popular feminism seems much clearer about this. So, what does it mean to be a feminist philosopher who is anti-trans and how exactly does this exhibit anything other than violent Transmisogyny as the Times letter exhibits?
-
-
Replying to @dorothyk98
Please explain how male people are female. Please explain how patriarchy as a system of reproductive appropriation came into existence if male and female people don't exist. Please explain how white people invented male and female people.
2 replies 2 retweets 35 likes -
Replying to @janeclarejones @dorothyk98
It's not transmisogyny. It's believing female people exist, have political interests, and have a right to politically self-define, as all oppressed people do. Usually known as feminism. Oh, and having a VERY low tolerance for bullshit and intellectual totalitarianism.
1 reply 6 retweets 57 likes -
Replying to @janeclarejones
Again, you are being liked by people have to put Nigel Farage as their avatar. You may wish to consider where this idea of "totalitarianism" is coming from and also how exactly inclusion, equity, justice is somehow a totalitarian issue.
#SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen and all that.3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dorothyk98
1. Guilt by association. So Jennifer Pritzker is a Trump supporter and a major NRA donor, but weirdly, that is not why I think trans ideology is a load of incoherent neoliberal techno-Platonist death worshipping crapola.
2 replies 4 retweets 44 likes -
Replying to @janeclarejones
You are still not answering the question about do you support this letter, do you support the conspiracy theories it propagates. Also, as someone who keeps having Nigel Farage avatars liking your comments, what is your point other than you are anti-trans.
5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dorothyk98 @janeclarejones
And so if you are anti-trans, no, you are not a "feminist." unless you are using a definition that ignored 40 years of critical discussion.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dorothyk98
So, let me recap the questions I have asked you and that you have not answered: Please explain: 1. How male people are female. 2. How white people invented male and female people. 3. How patriarchy came into existence if male and female people were only invented in the 15 C.
2 replies 7 retweets 41 likes -
Replying to @janeclarejones
As you have declared, after some back and forth since you seemed unwilling to answer that question, that you back this letter, and that you back the "evidence" (conspiracy theories) in the letter, what is the point of these questions. #1 is 2nd-wave feminism. #2 was 1/2
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dorothyk98
"Male people are female because is second-wave feminism." That's your answer. Ooookay.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes
Did we ignore the entire discussion of gender vs. sex and also gender queer not to mention gender fluid, obviously you have ignored transgender theory.
-
-
Replying to @dorothyk98
The thing is, you can keep telling me I have ignored things, and I will keep telling you that I have read them, and that I have written thousands of thousands of words on why I think they're crap.
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @janeclarejones @dorothyk98
You understand how intellectual thought works right? And that it's not brainwashing. And that sometimes people read things, and they think that they're wrong, and that used to be a normal part of academic discourse till you fascists took over?
2 replies 0 retweets 16 likes - Show replies
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.