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.
Show this thread
-
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.
Show this thread
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.
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread
End of conversation
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.