1/ I respect the right to protest at #wpuk last night. But feel sad that so much well-intentioned youthful energy goes into supporting well-funded, influential conservative political agenda which comes straight from elite (as was noted in meeting). It’s not remotely radical..
2/ to prop up sexist binaries by making them essential features of oneself. As we’re all non-binary, it’s not radical to say that only some special people are. It’s not radical to suppress the testimony of abuse survivors and detransitioner and lesbians and call them names. As I
3/ left the building last night, protestors were still going strong, chanting ‘Non-binary is valid’ repeatedly & enthusiastically. I caught the eye of a homeless, desperate-looking, partially dressed man sitting against the same building, 10 yards away. He looked confused. Me too
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Letter in @thetimes today, from some famous people, and me. Plus accompanying article. If you’re feeling inspired, please sign our petition ipetitions.com/petition/dear-…
.@stonewalluk thinks that males, who fancy females, can be 'lesbians', as long as they self-ID as 'women'. It's as if a charity for the political advancement of black people decided (God forbid) that there was only 'skin colour', and started to include people with suntans.
That is: superficially shared properties do not make two things the same. If you stick lesbianism under wider umbrella of 'people who self-ID as women & fancy other people self-IDing as women' you lose lesbianism as genuine phenomenon, & cease to be able to politically protect it
1) Calling statisticians which follow me - What do you think about this use of stats? I could do with some help. Here's a dramatic central claim from the Women and Equalities Trans Equality inquiry Final Report, 2nd para. 'A third of trans adults attempt suicide'.
Er.. yeah. I find this hard to read, partly for the sheer vitriol towards me, but also for the smug stupidity. There's no statistically significant trend of female-female violence. And even if there was, we couldn't solve it by excluding females from female spaces. Whereas....
Male violence is fact. Not all males but SOME. Why do we have single-sex spaces? Not to exclude 'cis men' ffs; to exclude males. It's a way of protecting females from sexual interest of some males. It's imperfect but it is the best available option. How else could we do it?
Transwomen are male. Most have penises. Many fancy females. These too are facts. There are documented cases of transwomen harming females. If we legally allow transwomen into female-only spaces, SOME females will be hurt by SOME transwomen. It's utterly predictable.
This is a thread about a twitter account: @LGBTLD ("LGBT Lib Dems'). The Liberal Democrats are the third main party in the UK currently. Here is the account bio.
This description suggests that they are, at least partly, an account representing lesbians and gays. But if you look at the feed, you don't really find much evidence of this. The feed is almost exclusively about the rights and interests of transpeople.
Insofar as the account mentions lesbians, it is only in the context of insisting that heterosexual male transwomen (with male genitals) are 'lesbian'. This view effectively erases lesbians (female homosexuals) as political category, in a world in which they already face stigma.
One of the most terrifying things about contemporary trans activism is this: poorly understood, life-changing medical interventions, on mostly female children, are being shielded from public scrutiny in order to serve the political interests of autogynephilic adult males.
To spell it out: a child who wishes to breast-bind, or remove breasts, or ‘halt puberty’ because she hates her sexed body, or because she’s gay and it’s easier to believe she’s a boy, is a totally different phenomenon than a male who gets aroused at the thought of having breasts.
The AGP tail is wagging the puberty-blocking dog here.
More fun and games on the APA blog (edited by my no 1 fan Oseroff, a fact of no relevance I’m sure) as a fellow philosopher waxes lyrical on my moral and intellectual flaws blog.apaonline.org/2018/09/12/wom…
The author says early on that many of her points are not original, and she’s absolutely right. I’ve seen them a lot, and I’m quite bored of them tbh. Eg she construed me as saying TW aren’t women, when my focus is always in fact that they aren’t members of the female sex class.
Thinks I’m ‘excluding’ TW from female spaces ‘from the descriptive claim’ they aren’t women. Nope. Mostly ignores my real reason, male pattern violence, including violence of male trans women, focusing near exclusively on violence against them.