The discussion worth having here is why people want to give legitimacy to fallacious arguments and ‘debate’ the gender identities of vulnerable minorities.https://twitter.com/irisvanrooij/status/1019338557247447040?s=21 …
-
-
Hey
@PsychScientists please listen to Olivia and Iris on this. Jack H/lberstam and other TERFs use that kind of rhetoric to erase NB folks all the time. It’s fundamentally dehumanizing to speak about NB folx in the way the article does.1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
I’ll absolutely take this on board. I’m very much not looking to be a dick here. I have some concerns about some bandwagons, but I’m mostly interested in not harming anyone
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @djnavarro @itatiVCS and
So, I find this bit is key. The rad-fem argument that gender is the social construction isn’t wrong. That’s literally how they defined the word so as to use it in specific political ways 1/a couple
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PsychScientists @djnavarro and
Word meaning can change and evolve, but it also has history. A lot of the gender critical stuff I’ve read is an effort to get back to the original feminist notion of gender because of concerns that expanding the meaning screws up the conversations you can have
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PsychScientists @djnavarro and
The pitch seems to be ‘*gender* isn’t the right way to frame your nonconformity because it leads to weirdnesses’ sometimes followed by ‘here’s an alternative framing’ And the weirdnesses show up for the feminists because the word gender means very specific things
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PsychScientists @djnavarro and
Why do you assume it's me/us against feminists? Do you think I'm not a feminist and/or that trans women can't be feminists?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.