Read on Twitter
Disclaimer: I’m not a feminist and I’m a man. (Thread)
I find myself in the position of rooting for women after witnessing the agenda of endlessly redefining what a woman is, essentially by men who fantasise about wanting to be women.
Let’s think about this for a second https://twitter.com/ClaireShrugged/status/1236247283802542081
I find myself in the position of rooting for women after witnessing the agenda of endlessly redefining what a woman is, essentially by men who fantasise about wanting to be women.
Let’s think about this for a second https://twitter.com/ClaireShrugged/status/1236247283802542081
Men who want to be women, according to the traditional categorisation, are redefining the very categorisation, in order to actually belong to the traditional woman category. In other words they want their cake and to eat it too. But this cannot be.
Either the categorisation is fixed, according to a specific set of criteria, and this must be a simple enough set for it to be of any use, or the categorisation is too flexible and it means it’s not a useful enough categorisation.
The biological sex differences are so fundamental that a fixed categorisation is unavoidable. This allows us to orient ourselves in the world. We need the low resolutions categorisations to function. Imagine if we didn’t have the concept of left, right and center.
Imagine instead we only had angles/degrees. (This is essentially what is behind the whole non binary concept btw. It’s saying, forget about left/right and center. Just think in terms of degrees. This is a completely unworkable idea. We need low resolutions categorisations).
Challenging the low resolution categorisation of biological sex, leaving aside the ideologically pseudo science that tries to rationalise it, is a dangerous strategy for the following reason: it’s asking us to get rid of one of the most fundamental categorisation.
What TRAs actually want is the following: they want to teleport from one category (man) to the other (woman) without actually fulfilling the category criteria. They want a free pass. This is a contradiction, so they are seeking to redefine the criteria for the categorisation.
The correct way to approach this problem is *not* to redefine the fundamental categorisation. But to make sub categories, e.g. a transwoman is a subset of the male category, not the female one. Many transfolks agree with this. This is the correct and reasonable solution.
So to the charge of transphobia, the answer should be. It’s not transphobic to propose that a transwoman is a subcategory of the male fundamental category. It’s no erasing their identity. It’s acknowledging it. It would be transphobic if there was a refusal of any categorisation.
This is in my mind the most effective answer to the charge of transphobia. Trans folks should feel part of society and should be treated with dignity as individual, just as everyone else should be, but *not* at the expense of the fundamental categorisation. That’s the red line.
