Be worse for greater justice!


I’m immediately put on my guard when someone starts using the old zero-sum argument against acknowledging someone’s rights: “Giving them the same rights I have means my rights are diminished!” This is not a good argument. Granting someone else rights does not shrink the pool of possible rights we can allow. But this is exactly the argument Sarah Ditum makes, and she even says it right in the title: Trans rights should not come at the cost of women’s fragile gains.

With a lead like that, you might expect that she’d then give lots of substantial examples of “unavoidable conflicts between women’s rights and the current trans-activist agenda”, because otherwise, I’m not going to believe it. But here’s her case: “born women” have had to acknowledge the existence of trans women.

In June Cancer Research UK, a charity, tweeted: “Cervical screening (or the smear test) is relevant for everyone aged 25-64 with a cervix.” The odd phrasing—“everyone with a cervix” rather than “women”—was not accidental. The charity explained that it had deliberately chosen to use what it described as “inclusive language”. Similarly, the campaign Bloody Good Period, which donates tampons and sanitary towels to asylum-seekers, uses the word “menstruators” rather than “women”. And Green Party Women, an internal campaign group of the British Green Party, confirmed last year that its preferred designation for the constituency it represented was not, in fact, “women” but “non-men”.

OK, but if you’re a trans man with a cervix, shouldn’t you get cervical screening? And aren’t there plenty of women who do not menstruate for one reason or another, not just because they might be a trans woman but because they’re menopausal or taking pills? This is a rather odd complaint.

Ah, but you see, the problem is that these trends for accurate language are applied unequally. So clearly the trans activists are only targeting women’s causes for change.

It is notable that Cancer Research UK did not test its “inclusive” approach with a male-specific cancer. Its campaign messages about prostate and testicular cancer address “men”, rather than “everyone with a prostate” or “everyone with testicles”. (Addressing “people with a cervix” is, of course, only inclusive of people who know they have a cervix. Many women do not have that detailed knowledge of their internal anatomy. And those who speak English as a second language may well not know the word.) While organisations in the women’s sector have revised their language to avoid the word “women”, male-specific charities such as CALM (the Campaign against Living Miserably, a movement against male suicide) continue to refer uncomplicatedly to “men”. Women’s groups are aggressively picketed for being exclusionary; men’s clubs are left unmolested.

All right, that’s a good argument. She’s right that this asymmetry is a problem. It seems to me, though, that the problem is that trans activism hasn’t gone far enough — that we should be objecting to prostate and testicular screening campaigns that only address “men”, rather than “people with testicles and/or prostates”, and that we should aspire to greater inclusivity. It is particularly ironic that CALM doesn’t seem to recognize that discrimination against trans men and trans women increases their suicide rate. So shouldn’t Ditum be concerned about this habit of “uncomplicatedly” referring to “men” and “women”?

But no. She’s instead arguing that we should return to the lack of complicatedness of just ignoring the existence of trans individuals. It’s really weird. Her entire essay should be read as an argument for the importance of using inclusive language for all, and that society has fallen short in many instances, but her conclusion is that we should fall even shorter, to make things fair.

I don’t get it. Be worse for greater justice! It’s not a very appealing slogan.

Comments

  1. komarov says

    The language and / or education barrier is a reasonable concern as well. It’s only a pity that it seems to be used here only to argue for rolling back everything, when in reality it is simply one more thing to keep in mind when you’re trying to reach different groups of people. Will everyone be able to understand the message? If not then apparently the only viable solution is to give up and stick to the status quo.

  2. dianne says

    The lack of inclusive language in screening for testicular and, in particular, prostate cancer is a real problem. Post-op trans women still need screening for prostate cancer since (if I understand correctly) the surgery does not remove the prostate. Also, intersex and non-binary people exist. They need appropriate screening as well.

  3. Michael Barton says

    “We all do better when we all do better.”

    -Paul Wellstone

    (This is Greg Laden, not Michael Barton.)

  4. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    I too never understand “rights” as a limited resource and expanding one category of rights reduces the size of another category of rights. Increasing “gay rights” reduces “women’s rights”? How exactly? I thought “rights” were a mutual agreement among people. That they are not gemstones found scattered in various random locations to be hoarded as rare commodities. They are conventions of behavior, given the term “right” to help regulate our behavior with each other. “Gay rights” are not things gays took from another, nor are they things given to gays. It is simply recognition that gays are as much people as everyone else. The “right” is not exclusive to gays, it is recognition that gays have the SAME rights as everyone else. Calling it “gay rights” is a way to withhold it, by making it look special to only gays. Just like “Gay Marriage” is simply _Marriage_, (1) what difference is it that the two being married are gay, (2) why do you really care, (3) how does it affect your marriage, yada yada yada.
    *sigh*

  5. wzrd1 says

    I view rights under a slightly different zero sum view.
    Rights that are “expanded” have now turned what really was a privilege into actual rights, enriching those I already enjoyed. So, I say, whatever “rights” that some marginalized group wants to enjoy should be theirs. It actually turns what was a privilege into a right, which is and should be undeniable and let’s face it, sharing is caring.

    But, when it comes to medical screening or treatment, *everything* should be a right. The alternative simply can become, quite trivially, a privilege of surviving or dying.

    The only time I can see where denial of what is considered a right would be valid are due to Special Circumstances, where I’d far prefer three Minds consulting. That, to avoid the potential for a Grey Area creating a conflict that is unnecessary.*

    *That last is a joke based upon the Culture series of novels, by Ian Banks.

  6. rcs619 says

    I honestly don’t get the hysteria that some people view trans rights with. Even if trans-folk got every single thing they wanted (which is probably never going to happen, even in an ideal administration), they’re still a tiny minority of the overall population. It’s still entirely possible that you never meet a trans person in some places, and never even have to deal with their expanded rights, purely based on the numbers. This far-reaching trans boogeyman, just waiting to invade womens’ restrooms and whatnot, just doesn’t exist. There aren’t nearly enough of them for that.

    The same thing goes for gay rights too, really. You’re talking about, what, 2% of the population according to some estimates? Sometimes as high as 4%? (Granted, this relies on self-reporting, which not necessarily super-reliable on a sensitive topic like this). 2% is not insignificant in a nation of over 300 million, but it’s still such a tiny number.

    All this fighting and doomsaying for something that is only going to affect a small portion of the population. Then again, picking on minority groups is easy. That’s why it keeps happening again, and again.

  7. mcfrank0 says

    This is all one with the objections of the “press one for English” crowd.

  8. says

    rcs619, a lot of it comes down to the idea, still held by many, that being anything but straight and cis is unnatural. They think that people are only gay, trans etc. because they’ve been brainwashed, or had something horrible happen to them and overreacted. Some even think it’s a plot by their supposed enemies to destroy Christianity, or Western Civilisation, or whatever their pet cause is.

  9. Susan Montgomery says

    Am I going to get booed by saying that, as a Trans*woman, I find this “inclusive” language to be patronizing tokenism at best and a zero-effort tolerance which avoids actual life-or-death issues in favor of touchy-feely fluff?

  10. Rey Fox says

    I can easily see “everyone with testicles” being conveniently rolled up into current hyper-masculine coding. “These screenings should be sought by everyone with testicles. Know what I mean, bro?” “Yeah bro!” *high five*

  11. says

    @9 Susan Montgomery who said “Am I going to get booed by saying that, as a Trans*woman, I find this “inclusive” language to be patronizing tokenism at best and a zero-effort tolerance which avoids actual life-or-death issues in favor of touchy-feely fluff?”

    As a trans women who also used to do nursing I can tell you this language is NOT fluff. Until this debate came up and I saw someone advocating for prostate screening language that included trans women it never even occurred to me (and I am someone who should know this) that I needed to have prostate screening even post surgery. With some family history this is actually really important for me and without the inclusive language it would never have occurred to me. For me this could very well be a life or death issue.

  12. davidnangle says

    The Right seems to never actually want “rights” at all. They love the term, and love to use it all the time, but they always mean “privileges.” Then, they start the enjoyable discussion of who gets it and who doesn’t deserve it at all.

    The idea of a right is horrific and unimaginable to them.

  13. says

    The more freedom and justice there is for any individual, the more there is for everyone, because then everyone is living in a freer, more just society. It’s win/win/win.

    Matthew 25:40

    And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

  14. dianne says

    @9: Although I cannot and do not intend to tell you how to feel about it and would agree that inclusive language is not adequate to address all or most of the issues faced by trans*people, I disagree with the implicit assessment of it as useless. Lack of inclusion can kill or maim. Consider, for example, a trans*man who has decided that he is not going to get bottom surgery because there is no point in going to a surgeon when he can get a better result from a novelty store. He develops severe acne from the testosterone and is prescribed retinoic acid. The dermatologist, seeing a muscular, bearded man and an “M” on the patient data and not doing a genital exam because whose dermatologist looks at their groin anyway, does not think to warn him about the pregnancy risk.The pharmacist doesn’t either. He becomes pregnant. The fetus suffers severe teratogenic damage. (This came very near to being a real life case and only wasn’t because the patient thought it through and asked about pregnancy.)
    Then there’s thalidomide. No person of any gender should become pregnant while taking thalidomide. Or lenalidomide or pomalidomide, thalidomide’s stronger siblings. The wrong counseling based on lack of understanding and inclusive language could result in more thalidomide babies.
    Finally, the original ad that caused the controversy: The important requirement for needing a pap smear is having a cervix. A man with a cervix needs a pap smear. A woman without a cervix does not, no matter what the cause of lack of cervix. A nonbinary or intersex person with a cervix needs one.
    If the language is condescending or otherwise offensive, maybe we don’t have the right language yet. Most of the people developing the language at least in medicine are probably cis, though one hopes and expects they include trans*people in the discussion. (Having not participated in it, I can’t say for certain.) Or maybe–novel idea–we should work on a more inclusive society as well.

  15. Susan Montgomery says

    @anna, while I concede that there are particular instances where inclusion might be of value, I still maintain my view that getting wrapped up in words and labels leads to obligatory tokenism rather than true inclusion.

    And it also leads to what I like to call “inclusion creep” – where we’re stuck chasing our tails making sure every little variation is included that we miss the larger picture – see the debates over the LGBT rainbow flag for an example.

  16. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Look, to be perfectly honest this isn’t differential activism based on sexism. This is differential activism based on the fact that women are, on average, less horrifyingly cissexist than men.

    Men commit the vast majority of murders generally – which has to do with sexism, yes, but hear me out – and the vast majority of cissexist murders specifically. In fact, though it’s impossible to know for sure, all the data we do have points towards men committing a more highly disproportionate share of the cissexist murders than they do murders in general.

    Trans people aren’t stupid. We reasonably fear for our lives (and other things). If we’re going to do activism, we strongly consider both the possible negative consequences as well as the positive consequences before we choose a path. I think it’s clear that sexism has something to do with the lesser potential consequences of protesting cissexism among groups traditionally dominated by women than cissexism among groups traditionally dominated by men.

    This doesn’t mean that feminism hasn’t penetrated far enough into trans activist groups (though I won’t rest until feminism is ubiquitous among every group, including trans folks). It’s not trans people enacting sexism. It’s a clear indication that feminism hasn’t penetrated far enough into men’s circles (activist or not), with trans people making rational decisions about what they can safely ask for, what they can safely accomplish, in an environment that still includes rampant sexism.

    Also? This isn’t about rights. This is about rhetoric.

    Look for me to repost an old Gender Workshop entry on this topic over at Pervert Justice.

  17. says

    Susan Montgomery:

    Am I going to get booed by saying that, as a Trans*woman, I find this “inclusive” language to be patronizing tokenism at best and a zero-effort tolerance which avoids actual life-or-death issues in favor of touchy-feely fluff?

    Speaking as someone who is in their 7th month of cancer treatment, I can state with confidence that cancer is indeed a life or death issue, and that’s just one of the problems which could be easily missed by any trans*person who is unaware of standard screenings they would still need, when inclusive language makes such things very clear.

    It’s pretty fucking callous of you to dismiss such issues simply because you don’t think it matters in your life. Not everything is about you, Susan. You can count this as one ‘boo’.

  18. rietpluim says

    …and even if human rights are a zero sum game, why not distribute them fairly anyway? Why would white cishet men have all the good?

  19. Susan Montgomery says

    @Caine, while I hope you recover fully, I’m still a bit perplexed. One thing that was made clear to me (to a rather insulting degree, I should add) when I first started transition was that HRT didn’t alter the core masculine physiology. However, being betwixt and between does seem kind of avoidable no matter what words we use.

    @dianne I am down with that last bit. It’s a challenge for the future to work out language which is both elegant, thorough and yet doesn’t diminish Trans* identities.

  20. patricklinnen says

    This quote from Thomas Jefferson is about religion but applies in many cases;

    “It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

    What part of LGBT (or QUILTBAG) harms a third party?

  21. chrislawson says

    I would like to point out that the “odd phrasing” Sarah Ditum objects to is NOT about subtle coded inclusiveness for trans men. There are plenty of cis-het women without a cervix — everyone who has had a hysterectomy for instance, not to mention those born without a cervix. And people without a cervix do not need cervical cancer screening as there is zero chance of them developing cancer of an organ that they do not have. The point of the wording is to let people know that if they have a cervix then they should be screened and if they don’t have a cervix then they should not. So, yes, trans men with an intact cervix will be included in the group that should have screening…as they damn well should.

    (Official screening protocols are a little more complex than that, and they do vary from country to country, but the general rule that having a cervix means you should have cervical screening is a good one. There are some important exceptions though, such as continuing screening with a vault smear in those who have had a hysterectomy because of a cervical cancer, so if you’re wondering check with your doctor.)

    Essentially Ditum is saying that she would prefer to confuse public knowledge, with the inevitable effect of increasing the number of cervical cancer deaths in trans men AND increasing the number of useless screening tests in women who do not have a cervix…all so that she doesn’t have to put up with the discomfort of reading technically accurate, gender inclusive public health messages.

  22. Azkyroth, B*Cos[F(u)]==Y says

    Am I going to get booed by saying that, as a Trans*woman, I find this “inclusive” language to be patronizing tokenism at best and a zero-effort tolerance which avoids actual life-or-death issues in favor of touchy-feely fluff?

    You may experience some pushback as a petulant, self-aggrandizing reflexive contrarian.

  23. Athywren - not the moon you're looking for says

    It’s funny, because they get it in other contexts. There’s a group on Facebook that I was following that posted the following, back to back:
    “More rights for others doesn’t mean less rights for you – it’s not pie.”
    and
    “This is a great article on why trans rights threaten women’s rights!”

    Like, hey… do you even listen to yourselves?

  24. Holms says

    I am curious, where is the push for inclusiveness of women that have had hysterectomies that still need pap smears? And language would be used to include them?

  25. methuseus says

    Many women do not have that detailed knowledge of their internal anatomy. And those who speak English as a second language may well not know the word.

    This is an actual, good, criticism of the wording in this ad. If she had focused on this and given a way to make it make more sense for women who may not be knowledgeable, especially with English as their second (or third, etc.) language, she could have written a good article that I think we could all get behind. It’s like she knows she’s wrong, but she still pushes ahead for some unknown reason.

  26. Susan Montgomery says

    @Azkyroth – good. I was beginning to think I was losing my touch.

  27. chrislawson says

    Holms@28–

    It’s not possible to cover all the complexities of a population-based health screening program in a public awareness campaign. The purpose is to get the idea out to as many people as possible, especially those who would benefit but would not otherwise have thought to get the screening done.

    Those who have had a hysterectomy but will need to continue having Pap smears would normally be informed of this by the surgeon who performed the hysterectomy, who should also put them into a recall system so that they will get a reminder when their next test is due. In sensible countries that have an active primary medicine sector (like almost all the OECD apart from a certain rogue state), the surgeon would also write back to the referring primary care doctor/GP who would add an entry into their own recall system as well. In Australia, we also have state-based registries that keep their own records of Pap results (if the person consents to share the data) that will send a reminder out as well. Which means that this group shouldn’t need a public education campaign — although it might be a valuable exercise in a country where a lot of such people are lost to follow-up.

  28. dianne says

    @28: I’m not sure it’s technically possible to do a pap smear on someone without a cervix. One can send a vaginal scraping on a pap card, but a pap smear implies scraping from the external and internal cervical lining. In any case, what scenario were you thinking of where a person might need a pap smear after a hysterectomy? If it was a sub-total hysterectomy, then they come under the category of “people with a cervix”. Otherwise, they may need a gynecologic exam, but they don’t need a pap smear per se and with any luck their doctor has talked to them about follow up requirements, as has already been pointed out.

  29. dianne says

    @chrislawson: Is data from the state registry available for research (anonymized, I would assume)? Has anyone looked at the rate of positive smears as the HPV vaccine comes into use? May be too soon for those results, but maybe not.

  30. says

    In CALM’s partial defense, they are a charity specifically devoted to combatting a specific problem. I would imagine – and I have no stats backing this up so feel free to shout if you do – that the factors leading to cismale suicide are different to those leading to transmale suicide and an organisation specialising in dealing with, overcoming, etc. one set of those problems won’t necessarily have any useful expertise for the other. There seems to be an element of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good in that criticism.

  31. Holms says

    #31 chrislawson
    Those who have had a hysterectomy but will need to continue having Pap smears would normally be informed of this by the surgeon who performed the hysterectomy,

    And those that have transitioned, or are in the process of doing so, would no doubt be told the same thing from their surgeon / GP. And with the same caveats, too. If a nation has a decent health system, a person will probably be well informed in either situation; and if not, both would be at risk of being underinformed.

    #32 dianne
    In the event of a complete hysterectomy, cancer screening is still warranted for some years – or possibly for life, I’m not sure – if the hysterectomy was in response to cancer. Otherwise, you’re right to assume that it is discontinued.

  32. chrislawson says

    dianne@32 and @33–

    Yes, a Pap smear is a swipe of the cervical mucus to capture cervical squamous cells to survey under microscopy. So, as you say, if you don’t have a cervix you technically can’t have a Pap smear. But the term has become interchangeable with any vaginal speculum exam + swabbing for a tissue sample, even in medical circles. (Pure laziness, I would say, as it’s a lot easier to just say “Pap”.) To be technically correct, a Pap smear is a cervical smear, and after a hysterectomy the test should be called a “vault smear” (i.e. the doctor/nurse swabs the top of the vagina, where the cervix was removed and the deep end of the vagina sutured).

    And, yes indeed the data is used for research. The most interesting question currently is how much effect HPV vaccination will have on abnormal smear rates and cancer rates (not exactly the same thing). In Australia, we’ve just moved from a Pap smear screening program to an HPV screening program, so this will change the way data is collected and interpreted but it is expected to lead to better screening with fewer visits (the frequency of routine speculum examinations drops from every 2 years to every 5 years). Current projections are that the HPV vaccine combined with the new screening program will reduce cervical cancer deaths by around 50% over the next 15-20 years (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185332).

  33. chrislawson says

    Holms@35–

    A new factor in the equation is social media. A lot of people now get medical information from the online groups they sign up for, which means a lot of people are getting excellent information from peer networking rather than official information sources, even if the information originates from government health bodies. (Of course, they can also get really bad information from peer networking…)

  34. dianne says

    chrislawson@36: I may have been being a tad over literal about the pap smear thing. And people who have had cancer certainly need monitoring, but it won’t be on the same schedule as routine screening. On the subject of timing of pap smears, I’m not sure why we’re pushing the envelope so hard on a test that requires neither radiation nor sedation and isn’t even all that uncomfortable.

    Thoughts on the cervical cancer and abnormal pap monitoring:
    1. Cool!
    2. Drat, there goes that idea for a quick paper.

  35. Holms says

    #37 chrislawson
    There have always been exceptions to the general rule that women get pap smears, in that there have always been some women that have not needed them, and some men and intersexed people that have needed them. But then that circles back to the reason I posed the question in #28, which I think was also the basis for Sarah Ditum’s article (I only read the excepts quoted above) – why are accomodations to the language surrounding women’s health being carved out for the benefit of trans people, when the same care with language is not being extended to other groups that would also stand to benefit?

    Or more specifically, why is a broad, generally-but-not-perfectly true statement no longer good enough? I can think of one answer right away, and I think you mentioned it earlier too: changing the language to account for every exception would be ludicrously burdensome. But then, why only change the language to account for one class of exceptions, and why that exception and not others?

  36. says

    @39 Holms

    Because you are assuming that because the above is one of the first changes that the others are not also desired. Demanding that 100% of the language changes in one single instant, BANG, or else we don’t want the later changes is pretty naive and possibly disingenuous.

  37. Holms says

    It is not disingenuous, why wait for other changes? And why, if changes must be done one at a time when the time is ripe for each change, why is this a more urgent change than being inclusive towards those that have other reasons to need vaginal cancer screening?

  38. chrislawson says

    Holms @39–

    Because, (1) the new message is a better broad generally-but-not-perfectly true statement, and (2) because it includes more eligible people without excluding any if the existing screening groups.

    Also, it really is worth your while going back and reading the Ditum opinion piece. She has one good point — that Cancer UK doesn’t do the same thing for prostate cancer, where it just refers to “men” rather than “people with a prostate”. And I would hope that in the near future, that will be corrected. And you can see that she acknowledges the problems trans people face. But she then goes on to make some appallingly transphobic and trans-exclusionary arguments.

    For instance, “rather than confront male violence or lobby the medical system, the focus of trans activism has overwhelmingly been the feminist movement, spaces and services designed for women, and the meaning of the word ‘woman’.” Which is complete BS. Trans rights activists have been working on lots of fronts. If trans rights have made more gains in feminist circles, then I would see that as a positive sign that feminist groups recognise progressivism and inclusivity far earlier than non-feminist groups.

    Or how about “male-specific charities such as CALM (the Campaign against Living Miserably, a movement against male suicide) continue to refer uncomplicatedly to ‘men’,” which is a completely dishonest equivocation because CALM offers services to all people who identify as men, whether they are trans or cis or genderfluid, and whether or not the man has a prostate or other male genitalia is irrelevant to their services, AND they provide links to services that have a specific transgender support role.

    Or how about “In sports, trans inclusion means trans women (natal males, such as Laurel Hubbard, a weightlifter from New Zealand) competing against and beating female athletes, while trans men (natal females) present little threat to male competitors.” Which is I agree an issue in sports, but which is complex with good arguments on both sides, but which has fuck-all to do cancer screening. Essentially she’s saying “let’s let trans men die of cervical cancer because I don’t like trans women beating cis women at power sports.”

    Or how about, “Channel 4’s Diversity Lectures, given this year by Caitlyn Jenner (formerly Bruce, an American Olympic athlete)—a controversial decision not because this was the third speaker born male in the three years of the lectures’ existence, but because of Ms Jenner’s support for the Republican Party.” Notice the TERFing insistence that Jenner was “born male” and therefore counts in her mind as another man speaking on diversity.

    And the icing on the cake? “There is a word for a situation where women talking about female bodies is considered impermissibly antisocial, where describing the consequences of sexism for women is systematically impeded, where resources for women are redistributed to male users while resources for men are left in male hands, and where ‘male’ and ‘female’ are rigidly associated with masculinity and femininity. That word is not ‘progressive’, ‘liberal’ or any of the other terms usually associated with trans activism. The word is misogyny.”

    Remember that when you defend Ditum’s arguments — she openly states that a cancer charity widening its public health messages to include trans men who need cervical screening is misogynistic. Her word. It might be a good idea to read the article before leaping to the defence of someone I imagine you would vehemently disagree with.

  39. Silentbob says

    @ Holms

    I think you’re missing the point. It’s not just about precision in language, although that’s a happy side-effect. It’s about inclusion of marginalized groups. The reason many health care providers today want to use inclusive language is that they want a trans man, or a non-binary person, to be able to come in and say, “Hi, I’m Mr Frank Jones, and I’m here for a pap smear” without worrying that they’re going to be looked at like they’ve just arrived from Mars, or just ingested some hallucinogenic drug. The whole point is to indicate that they’re aware biology is separate to gender, even though we live in a world where many dinosaurs are unaware that it is so.

    There isn’t, as far as I know, any systemic prejudice against women who have had hysterectomies, with respect to those that haven’t. I feel like you’re clutching at straws trying to think of some technical exclusion, ignoring that it’s not similarly indicative of discriminatory cisheteronormativity. Which is a fancy-pants way of saying we have a cultural tendency to treat trans and gay people as weirdos. The point of inclusive language is to redress the balance and say, “you’re not a weirdo, we can deal”.

    Do you think women with hysterectomies are likely to be discriminated against by women’s health-care providers? If not, it’s not the same.

  40. Silentbob says

    @^

    Also everything chrislawson said. Ditum’s “argument” doesn’t exist in a vacuum. This is her shtick. It’s just chapter 47 in “half-assed rationalizations I’ve made up off the top of my head for why I really, really, really, wish trans people didn’t exist”.

Leave a Reply