One reason that terfs are so frequently accused of racism is that the idea that the female body naturally incurs oppression is capacitated by claims about intrinsic traits of racial groups.
-
Show this thread
-
At the very least, one could ask why femaleness *alone* is a source of oppression, if other oppressions are not intrinsic.
1 reply 4 retweets 67 likesShow this thread -
Lesbian feminism, queer feminism, and trans feminism have long argued that the reduction of the female body *to* reproductive capacity is an effect of patriarchal repression, not a cause of it. It is that logic that terfism seeks to repudiate.
1 reply 15 retweets 158 likesShow this thread -
The lived reality of misogyny is a condition that trans women share with cis women, and it has as much to do with a fantasy of sexual receptivity as one of reproductive capacity. Yes, it’s something I experience—here, on Twitter, even from terfs, even (truly) before transition.
1 reply 6 retweets 107 likesShow this thread -
This is not to say that reproductive healthcare isn’t a trans feminist issue! I realize that some ppl think trans women are trying to deprioritize traditional feminist issue, but the opposite is true: terf groups like WoLF are cycling out reproductive care to attack trans women.
1 reply 8 retweets 88 likesShow this thread -
Terfs apparently believe that women’s bodies inevitably and naturally incur oppression. Trans feminists believe that patriarchy’s oppression of women partly takes the form of defining women’s bodies as intrinsically weak. I do not believe terfs are good feminists.
1 reply 11 retweets 119 likesShow this thread -
Oh, and the etymology of “feminism,” from the Latin “femina,” meaning “woman,” has nothing to do with gamete motility or chromosomes, or whatever latest superstition the terfs are settling on. It means woman. Social category.
1 reply 3 retweets 113 likesShow this thread -
In short, “sex-based rights” are a newfangled confection designed for one reason only: to exclude trans women. They are a really bad deal for cis feminists.
3 replies 8 retweets 136 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @graceelavery
I think that's overly generous. They are designed for two reasons. First, as you say, to exclude trans women. Second- and I think intentionally- to wedge open the door for female biology to be treated differently under the law and return to "traditional" separations by sex.
1 reply 1 retweet 34 likes -
Replying to @e_urq @graceelavery
Absolutely no offense meant, but I think many trans women miss the implications of efforts, rhetorical and legal, to protect trans men from transitioning because trans men are too womanly to make health care decisions for themselves.
2 replies 1 retweet 36 likes
As owners of "female" bodies, trans men are subject to "sex based" protections, which are about protecting the fertility of said bodies, rather than the autonomy of the people the bodies belong to.
-
-
Replying to @e_urq @graceelavery
How bloody awful but I think you’re right, sadly.pic.twitter.com/sOyutZNVXi
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. 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.