The pity of it all is:

"in some contexts it's not a problem to treat TW *as if* they are women, and in others it's a *huge* problem, so let's talk about specifics"

is all that a lot of people been saying.

TWAW was always absolutist, and always false.

In this comment, I'm not trying to speak for anyone, or to say anything more that 'this is what a lot of people have been saying'. I realise that some people say much more than this, and will disagree with this attempt at encapsulating a view. I'm reading all the critical...
... comments. The point is to show how extreme and absolutist TWAW was, and how reasonable discussion of policy might be possible, once that is junked. I expect reasonable disagreement. I'm opposed to unreasonable absolutism. And maybe that's dying away.
If so, good.

More from Category lgbt

You May Also Like

"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".