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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @janeclarejones
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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 -
Replying to @janeclarejones
As the fascists have me as their target, it's really fascinating how being inclusive, supporting transgender folks, discussing intersectional feminism is somehow "fascist." As I actually write about the far right and fascism, I find this name calling interesting.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dorothyk98 @janeclarejones
So then, what is your point, if you've written all these things, and are happy to identify as anti-trans, against intersectionality, but basically for essentialist white feminist ideas of sex, what exactly are you trying to defend? You are a TERF.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dorothyk98
SHE'S A WITCH BURN HER BURN HER. Yup, not a totalitarian bone in your body. Seriously. Go a read the French critique of identitarianism and get the fuck back to me.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
Is there a particular reason that somehow you feel necessary to use expletives when apparently you wish to have "intellectual discourse." Also, as I said earlier, I never brought up witches, but sure, go ahead and continue with the rhetoric (a rhetoric the far right also likes).
-
-
Replying to @dorothyk98
If you don't understand the historical form of your own discourse that ain't my problem. And I swear because I want to, and because I'm an old crone who gives absolutely no fucking fucks. You've never met hags have you? Pity. We're a BALL.
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @janeclarejones
And again, what is the point. If you own it, why are you angry for being called out for your anti-trans stance, belief in trans conspiracy theories, and anti-intersectionality? You are not interested in equity or inclusion, so why even say feminist?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 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.