Read on Twitter
What has always driven the creation of separate spaces & opportunities for women are the physiological differences + inherent sexual tension that differentiate us from (& render us vulnerable to) men.
#notallmen, to be sure.
But the fact that most men...
1/5
#notallmen, to be sure.
But the fact that most men...
1/5
... do not want their mothers, wives, & daughters to disrobe in front of other men illustrates this fundamental truth pretty well.
And that's why allowing men to claim entitlement to those separate spaces & opportunities is absurd on its face ...
2/5
And that's why allowing men to claim entitlement to those separate spaces & opportunities is absurd on its face ...
2/5
Men's bodies - even bodies occupied by men who wish to be women - are still male.
And it's not just b/c they lack the (F) characteristics required for access.
It's that they possess the male characteristics (+ often hetero-sex drives) from which women seek protection...
3/5
And it's not just b/c they lack the (F) characteristics required for access.
It's that they possess the male characteristics (+ often hetero-sex drives) from which women seek protection...
3/5
Women's separate spaces & opportunities have never been predicated on "identity" & efforts to switch the paradigm expose a disregard for the safety, as well as the comfort & dignity, of women.
It's so obvious that I never imagined having to explain this to adults...
4/5
It's so obvious that I never imagined having to explain this to adults...
4/5
In short, the justification for female spaces and opportunities has *always* been about the material reality of our female bodies, immutable sex, and the threat male bodies *can* pose.
Identity is (or, in a sane world, 'should be') irrelevant to this conversation.
5/5
Identity is (or, in a sane world, 'should be') irrelevant to this conversation.
5/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
