If I wanted bystanders to understand exactly one thing about TERF campaigns, it's that they spend a tremendous amount of energy refuting arguments no one makes.
One of their star speakers not only ignored the entirety of what trans scholarship has actually said on gender, but she has been openly contemptuous of the idea that she should know it before claiming to respond to it.
I see The Discourse has resumed and I haven't found the source tweet but it seems to be generally evergreen for me to remind the baby queers that LGBTQ started as--and for the most part--still functions as, a political coalition, not a sexual taxonomy.
The liberational potential of LGBTQ+ had to do with finding vocabulary to name your own experiences, to own your own desire. Cishets seek clarity in sexual taxonomies to protect cisgenderism and heterosexuality, not give voice to their internal states.
Your solidarity shouldn't extend to another queer person based on whether or not they name their desire using the same label as you. We're all freaks to the bigots.
Alright, trans people are under siege from a lot of directions this week, so I'm going to do a thread on how one of those directions came to be from otherwise progressive people. CW: rape culture and transmisogyny.
I'll start by saying, as I've said many times, my actual interests are organized labour and abuse of authority. There's a bit of movement on the fringe of academic trans feminism I find interesting (h/t to @ButNotTheCity ) but it's not really "my thing."
The only reason I have to talk about this shit at all is that certain people and organizations have not stopped talking about this issue for the better part of three years--not coincidentally after losing the battle on gay marriage.
Mostly because I'm tired of people assuming my rejection of transgender-hostile feminism stems from "not understanding it," I'm going to make a master thread of everything I've ever written in response to various TERF talking heads.
On the claim that "debate" is a means of discovery regarding this issue:
For additional context: Her employer was the Center for Global Development. I imagine flogging any discredited philosophy at length, on a daily basis, giving numerous interviews and attending (frankly embarrassing) protests would damage your credibility in such a role.
The mission statement of her former employer in her own words was to support "evidence-based" policy, which would categorically exclude Transgender-Critical (I am loathe to concede the phrase "gender critical" when they clearly are not) 'Feminists'