Thread by @quollhorreur

So, I want to do a little thread addressing this tweet from Foghorn Hambone aka Vulvamort aka @glinner aka Graham Lineham.

You know the cishet dude that instructs lesbians on how to lesbian and claims to be a Right(eous) Defender of the Wimmins with many exclamation marks.

And, in a way, it’s not about even about him, it’s about the concept that he perfectly encapsulates in that tweet and how it goes against:

1) the basic tenets of human rights

2) the basic tenets of feminism

Namely, agreement is not a requirement to support rights for all.

In fact, the only people who call for agreement are the ones actively suppressing equality and equity.

For instance, look at those that love to cite the misatributed Voltaire quote (Bernice Hall did) about free speech.

Aside from very rare instances, those shouting about -

Shouting about free speech are the ones that wish to limit the speech of everyone else except themselves.

The same with Hambone here.

That specific call for agreement.

“I only support trans people who believe as I do.”

I can go into the ways this is steeped in privilege -

Systemic power and supremacy (just imagine I did so I seem way more erudite than I am).

Instead, I’m going to distill it down to the core.

A demand for agreement is antithetical to human rights.

Because to demand agreement is to make a judgment of who is “worthy”.

And human rights apply to all.

That’s it.

No caveat.

It’s all or it’s nothing.

To paraphrase - there aren’t the same rights for all then there are no rights for any.

To demand agreement is manipulative at and a power play.

Just to give you an idea of what support of human rights look like.

No demands for agreement to be afforded rights.

Two examples.

1 & 2. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

3 & 4. The Declaration of Geneva (the current descendent of the Hippocratic Oath)

I always find the Declaration of Geneva interesting.

It’s essentially “all about the patient, fuck your feels, mate”.

And, like Genital Police Captain Linehan, there are doctors who fail to uphold it because they demand agreement with their feels to award rights.

I want to contrast this tweet with an citation from a feminist activist (two really, given that it’s quoted).

It’s quite a contrast.

1. Exclusionary and demanding agreement to afford rights.

2. Inclusionary and demanding of oneself do better on supporting rights.

To make this about my personal feminism, I sure as hell think TERFs, SWERFs, White Feminists™️, tradwives, anti-choice feminists are bigoted as hell and wrong.

That’s doesn’t mean I do not fight for them in my intersectional feminism.

Because, it’s rights for all.

Or to put it another way.

Human rights are ALWAYS inclusionary.

This is not someone who believes in human rights.

So, @glinner, buddy, pal, mate, duder who

1. not only liked tweets where I was being misgendered, but

2. also retweeted a claim that my #TERFgoggles thread where I document (as a cis woman) the abuse/misgendering I received from TERFs/transphobes saying it was a hit list

Your claim to being a proponent of women’s rights is a lie.

Because you can’t even support basic human rights.

So, from a cis woman sick of you appropriating feminism and centering yourself to promote your bigotry?

Get knotted, you hypocritical piece of transphobic smegma.

And because I meant to address this and complete forgot until Joss pointed it out.

@glinner I said pet, I said love, I said mate, there’s no such thing “gender ideology”.

There’s trans people.

Your “gender ideology” rhetoric is recycled “race realism”, you marinated toe jam

As @joss_prior pointed out here, “gender ideology” has quite the bigoted history.

Ouch, Gragdor the Wimminator, reprising his King of the Lesbians, is using moral panic rhetoric that was used against same sex marriage and parenting.

That’s awkward.

https://twitter.com/joss_prior/status/1111039228215996421?s=21