fffs

4 ms·

1.
by fffs 3y ago
It's because this is a fundamental redefinition of the difference between women and men, one which seriously disadvantages women. When this ideological stance of "trans women are women" is enacted into law and imposed as poli
2.
by fffs 3y ago
This doesn't really address the criticism, for several reasons: 1. Males who identify as women are a heterogenous group that mostly consist of those who have not undergone the 'whole transition' (by which I assume you mean th
3.
by fffs 3y ago
> And trans people, why do people feel the need to criticize them? Let them be who they are, they're not harming anyone. The criticism is this: a woman's right to a single-sex spaces cannot co-exist with the desire of a male to
4.
Sometimes, condescension can seem almost as bad as cancellation(thecritic.co.uk)
1 points by fffs 3y ago|0 comments
5.
by fffs 3y ago
Indeed, I feel especially honoured that you laboured over so many paragraphs, in all their verbosity, to dismiss an opinion that means almost nothing to you.
6.
by fffs 3y ago
I found your response very amusing, though perhaps not in a way you would appreciate. Thank you for taking the time to write all that out for my enjoyment.
7.
by fffs 3y ago
Okay then, if you've read her work - which by that I assume you mean her book on this topic, and perhaps some of her articles as well - which aspects of it do you consider pseudo-scientific, and why?
8.
by fffs 3y ago
I placed it in quotes because I see it as a disputed concept that not everyone considers to be valid, and which doesn't even have a consistent definition amongst those who do. The main problem being that it conflates knowledge of one&#
9.
by fffs 3y ago
If you're going to comment critically on her work, maybe it would be best for you to read it yourself and form your own evaluation? Seems rather odd for you to be expressing this incuriously critical opinion from such a position of ign
10.
by fffs 3y ago
She's not stating anything pseudoscientific, nor anything that has been debunked. Quite the opposite really. Her work is meticulously well researched and she takes a satisfyingly rational and critical approach in elucidating her viewpo
11.
by fffs 3y ago
She's said a fair bit on the topic of DSDs, for example these tweets: - https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1488064619428122625 - https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/14960338
12.
by fffs 3y ago
> Is your point that you alone can stare down medical science and proclaim that congenital adrenal hyperplasia and aromatase deficiency don't exist? That's not what she is saying at all.
13.
Playing nice hasn't worked(thecritic.co.uk)
9 points by fffs 3y ago|22 comments
14.
Trust your discomfort(thecritic.co.uk)
2 points by fffs 3y ago|0 comments