ostrasyn

16.2K posts

ostrasyn banner
ostrasyn

ostrasyn

@ostrasyn

⟦Just checking in... oh god, oh god it's worse than before.⟧

Melbourne, Australia Katılım Eylül 2023
2.5K Takip Edilen466 Takipçiler
James Dreyfus
James Dreyfus@DreyfusJames·
Gosh. Peak revisionism. I’m not straight & my entire youth was spent around LGB people in the 🏳️‍🌈pubs & clubs of London. Yes, there was the occasional transsexual & drag queens, natch. But we didn’t call ourselves “que*r”. We left that to the que*r-bashers…
James Dreyfus tweet media
English
141
253
2.1K
37.6K
ostrasyn
ostrasyn@ostrasyn·
@EnarialP @darkest_roasted @rosykaren @NeubronnerKerry @Drusilla451 @ron_dwyer @DreyfusJames You're so obsessed with Tiffany and Timothy. x.com/ostrasyn/statu…
ostrasyn@ostrasyn

@HodsonAnn @FavorInfan61251 @moanaparte @blablafishcakes @DreyfusJames @ron_dwyer want it to. Or, alternatively, they might think you're talking about Tiffany, a trans woman, and Timothy, a trans man, and wonder why tf you are so obsessed with these two particular trans persons. Tiff and Tim are best friends, btw.

English
0
0
0
1
ostrasyn
ostrasyn@ostrasyn·
@phobophobiophi1 @DreyfusJames @ron_dwyer I mean, given that sex is (on your account) basically a historical contingency that can't be used to justify anything... Sure. You can keep "sex." And we'll just keep altering... sex. Or you can come up with another word for all the things *apart from* in utero development.
English
0
0
0
3
ostrasyn
ostrasyn@ostrasyn·
@phobophobiophi1 @DreyfusJames @ron_dwyer It's many material facts! And many definitions / descriptions, imo. x.com/ostrasyn/statu…
ostrasyn@ostrasyn

@Frances_Coppola @emmamegmargot @coldblueshark1 @MrCrystalMighty @speakoutsister Whether these terms are "scientific" as such seems a lot less interesting than what they mean, how we use them, etc., both within research contexts and beyond. Some recent work has focused on that (e.g., doi.org/10.3998/ptpbio…, academic.oup.com/icb/article/63…, sciencedirect.com/science/articl…).

English
0
0
0
2
ostrasyn
ostrasyn@ostrasyn·
@phobophobiophi1 @DreyfusJames @ron_dwyer Again, happy for you to endorse a deflationary conception of sex. If you're happy to accept the consequences of so deflationary a conception. You apparently aren't.
English
1
0
0
8
ostrasyn
ostrasyn@ostrasyn·
@phobophobiophi1 @DreyfusJames @ron_dwyer I have no issue doing that, because I take a contextualist / pluralist view; I don't think there's a One True Definition to be had. You apparently don't take that view, so it seems you're stuck in this cycle of equivocation.
English
1
0
0
6
ostrasyn
ostrasyn@ostrasyn·
@phobophobiophi1 @DreyfusJames @ron_dwyer I mean, that just sounds like cope on your part tbh. Again, what you really want to say here is that they *should not* be altered. That they should "align" or, maybe the word is, "conform," to the Ideal Design, the Plan?
English
1
0
0
9
ostrasyn
ostrasyn@ostrasyn·
@phobophobiophi1 @DreyfusJames @ron_dwyer I am saying, quite simply, that if you endorse so narrow a conception, you can no longer say that sex "matters" in the way you want to say that it matters. It matters in a narrow range of circumstances.
English
1
0
0
13
ostrasyn
ostrasyn@ostrasyn·
@phobophobiophi1 @DreyfusJames @ron_dwyer Yes. On the basis of characteristics that are to, a large extent, alterable. I don't know about you, but I don't tend to ask people about their development in utero. Not that they'd be able to give much detail about that anyway.
English
1
0
0
8

Keşfet

@FavorInfan61251 @HodsonAnn @Naeluckmate @AlisonTerf71r @MatkaTerf @Beardandcamera @moanaparte @DreyfusJames