You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
People need to understand that so-called "sex based rights" aren't really rights. They're protections based on a belief in women's vulnerability, fragility, and diminished agency. Calling them rights is a red herring.
Individual rights are things that allow us to move freely, speak freely, assemble with whoever we want to assemble with. "Sex based rights" are the opposite- they limit freedom in the name of protecting a class of people who are presumptively considered weak and at risk.
If we agree that AFAB people are, collectively, too at risk for normal individual rights to operate, we create a foundation for laws that claim to protect women by limiting their freedom. This is the opposite of feminism, and the opposite of having rights.
This was the basis for laws that once limited women's ability to own property, enter contracts, serve on juries, hold elected office, or vote. Patriarchal sex-based protections are what feminism exists to oppose. Rebranding it as rights doesn't change what it is.
The Keira Bell case exists to test the waters for legal limitations of AFAB people's rights, in the name of their protection. They started with minors (whose rights aren't the same as adults). But the next step would limiting transition for adults, in the name of protecting us.
The invisibility of trans men is contributing to people missing this paternalist dynamic and where it could lead. That needs to stop. The campaign to undermine trans men in the name of protecting "women" must become central to our discussions of transphobia and trans rights.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
