legal cases involving so-called women’s sex-based rights — a dog whistle used by herself and other anti-trans activists to exclude trans people from public spaces and reduce women to their genitals.
Clearly a dog whistle because it doesn’t even make sense to me.
It doesn’t make sense. It’s barely even a dog whistle, it’s just a real whistle but stupid.
She’s a TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist). She is basing her argument on “I’m a Feminist, I fight for women’s rights!” so that she sounds progressive and righteous if you aren’t paying enough attention. (Thus the “dog whistle” part)
The “sex-based” bit is the trans exclusionary part though. She has decided that she gets to decide what is a “real” “woman” and she has decided that “women” are only those people born with a vagina (thus the “reducing women to their genitals” comment).
Clearly a dog whistle because it doesn’t even make sense to me.
It doesn’t make sense. It’s barely even a dog whistle, it’s just a real whistle but stupid.
She’s a TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist). She is basing her argument on “I’m a Feminist, I fight for women’s rights!” so that she sounds progressive and righteous if you aren’t paying enough attention. (Thus the “dog whistle” part)
The “sex-based” bit is the trans exclusionary part though. She has decided that she gets to decide what is a “real” “woman” and she has decided that “women” are only those people born with a vagina (thus the “reducing women to their genitals” comment).
That’s what I’m saying. Usually there’s at least a little ambiguity to allow for plausible deniablity.
But that phrase literally means nothing to me. Without context I’d still assume it’s some transphobic shit.