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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @janeclarejones
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).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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 -
Replying to @dorothyk98
Own what. Being a witch??? You really don't understand shit about feminist history do you??? Witches are women who are free of the need to win patriarchal approval. And you are on the side that likes to burn us. That's it.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @janeclarejones
Actually, as I have actually done research on both medieval witches and the early modern witch trials, this is really a question of why do you even want to go there. But the point is, I never called you a witch, your decided on saying that I called you a witch.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dorothyk98 @janeclarejones
as your side is fine propagating transgender conspiracy theories about how transgender folks are dangerous to children, guess who the violence is going to happen to, not you, but to transgender folks because of your stance and this article. So no, let's discuss the real violence.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dorothyk98
Go on then. Explain to me how feminists thinking sex exists causes men to murder Brazilian prostitutes. Also, I'd like an explanation of why we should remove safeguarding around women and children without empirical evidence that male people stop committing male pattern violence
2 replies 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @janeclarejones @dorothyk98
when they identify as women. Because that is an empirical question, and the precautionary principle is a thing. If you're so damn sure it's true, why so much screaming at people for asking for evidence. Go and get the evidence.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
No one said we should remove the safeguards from women and children. But apparently you've decided that transgender folks are presumed dangerous to women and children with no evidence, just conspiracy theories.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.