Sometimes a rant is so incoherent that one can not criticize it’s non-existent point, but simply fisk the incoherent ramblings themselves. It is especially important to do so when it comes from a law professor who writes for Teen Vogue and “unironically” includes pronouns in the Twitter bio.
A fisking! A fisking!
Without further ado.
TERFs and transohobes are out in force today (and as of this tweet it's only 8am on the east coast).
Before you get seduced into debating justice for trans people on their (the TERFs') terms, let me remind us all that their terms are fundamentally wrong.
— Heron Greenesmith, Esq. (@herong) January 21, 2021
If you have a penis but insist on using word “woman” to describe yourself, arguing terms might not be the best idea.
Unless that idea is to be totalitarian who thinks “1984” is a “how-to” guide.
(Also, follow and RT actual trans people, as well as cis people who support justice and thriving for trans people. Drown the bigots' voices in the voices of those with lived experience.)
— Heron Greenesmith, Esq. (@herong) January 21, 2021
Ah, the “lived experience” trope that posits that reality dependent on who one is and not, ya know, just real.
(Let's talk a little, today, about a fundamental legal misinformation that TERFs peddle to try to justify their bigotry:
That in the United States, "women" derive their rights from nondiscrimination protections.
— Heron Greenesmith, Esq. (@herong) January 21, 2021
No. Neither women nor “women” derive rights from nondiscrimination protections. Rights are fundamental and a recognition of liberties and freedoms that are independent of, and antecedent to, legislation or even government itself.
(I say "women" because TERFs and transphobes have a decreasingly narrow definition of who gets to be a woman nowadays.
— Heron Greenesmith, Esq. (@herong) January 21, 2021
Ah, the “definition” that was universal before the age of gender studies and still used by most people to refer to biological females, who are one of the two sexes and have physical and actual physiological differences with males, both acute and statistically significant.
(The legal disinformation here in the US is centered around our judicial system's understanding of "sex."
Here in the US, the Constitution grants us what are called "negative rights," or the right to live freely from government interference in our life and liberty.
— Heron Greenesmith, Esq. (@herong) January 21, 2021
The Constitution does not grant any right. It simple declares rights that already existed and restricts the government from infringing upon them.
(In the context of discrimination, we in the US have interpreted our right to be free from invasions into our privacy and free from having our life, liberty, and property removed, as including "on the basis of your skin color, your race, your sex, your disability," etc
— Heron Greenesmith, Esq. (@herong) January 21, 2021
No, those rights and liberties are inalienable and apply regardless of those or other traits. Non-discrimination legislation says that neither the government nor businesses can discriminate upon those bases.
(So in the US, we have established a few circumstances in which it is not ok for the government to make decisions based on sex.
(Nb to our legal understanding of sex catching up to our biological understanding that sex is infinite and largely unknowable.)
— Heron Greenesmith, Esq. (@herong) January 21, 2021
No, the presumption is that one’s biological sex doesn’t matter most of the time, but that there are cases when the objective reality of biological sex must be taken into account and people be treated differently when there are actual and relevant differences.
And no, “sex” is not “infinite” nor is it “largely unknowable”.
(Title VII of our Civil Rights Act says, among many other things, that we have a right to be free from interference in our employment based on our sex.
People who are women have this right, AND SO DO PEOPLE WHO ARE MEN.
— Heron Greenesmith, Esq. (@herong) January 21, 2021
That one’s sex isn’t taken into account mean that it doesn’t matter what sex you are since it isn’t taken into account.
It is rather obvious.
(Title VII of our Civil Rights Act says, among many other things, that we have a right to be free from interference in our employment based on our sex.
People who are women have this right, AND SO DO PEOPLE WHO ARE MEN.
— Heron Greenesmith, Esq. (@herong) January 21, 2021
Because being forced to hire someone because of their sex is antithetical to not discriminating on the basis of sex?
(When a negative right is updated (in this case, to explicitly understand that impacting someone's employment because they're trans is sex discrimination) NO ONE'S RIGHTS ARE BEING "TAKEN AWAY" CAUSE THERE ISN'T ANYTHING TO BE TAKEN AWAY!!!!!!!
— Heron Greenesmith, Esq. (@herong) January 21, 2021
Negative rights can not be updated because they exist independent of any purported “updater”, as the Bill of Rights aptly recognizes. That the Supreme Court invented transgender rights that contradict the plain text of the statute that allegedly this right was derived does not, and can not, take away the fact that separate sports for biological females was instituted to prevent all sports from being dominated by males and that by allowing biological males to play on “women’s sports” that biological females will be excluded or at the very least placed as a permanent underclass.
(There isn't. anything. to. take. away.
— Heron Greenesmith, Esq. (@herong) January 21, 2021
Except what is taken by biological males who couldn’t cut it in “men’s sports” but could dominate in “women’s sports”.
(Regardless of what ANYONE SAYS, here in the United States, we do not protect Black people against discrimination, we prohibit discrimination on the basis of race.
We do not protect women against discrimination, we prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex.
— Heron Greenesmith, Esq. (@herong) January 21, 2021
That’s what equal protection means, after all.
(We do not protect Jewish, Muslim, or Sikh against discrimination, we prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion.
THERE ARE HUGE PROBLEMS WITH THIS SYSTEM!!!!!!!
IT IS NOT FOUNDED IN JUSTICE.
IT IS FOUNDED IN "RIGHTS."
— Heron Greenesmith, Esq. (@herong) January 21, 2021
If not discriminating is a problem, then perhaps your idea of “JUSTICE” is off.
(The system is fucked.
But what our fucked system does NOT DO is grant "women" any rights that can be taken away by updating our understanding that prohibiting discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on transgender status.
— Heron Greenesmith, Esq. (@herong) January 21, 2021
Our “system” recognized physical and physiological differences between the sexes and allows those differences to be taken into account when relevant.
What relevant difference is there with different “gender identities” if such a thing is separate and distinct from biological sex?
Let’s face it, “gender identity” is only relevant vis à vis one’s biological sex.
(To repeat:
The system is flawed. But there isn't anything to take away.
So when a TERF or a transphobe says "they're taking our rights," walk away. Or, look a little closer.
— Heron Greenesmith, Esq. (@herong) January 21, 2021
No, you want to take away their access to “women’s sports” by allowing biological males to dominate them.
(In the case of sports, Title IX established that our negative right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex in education meant that schools had to provide similar opportunities for all students.
In 1972, that included giving "girls" access to sports.
— Heron Greenesmith, Esq. (@herong) January 21, 2021
It allowed for separate facilities and teams, for example, due to differences between the biological sexes.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding from someone who claims to be a law professor.
(Listen, TITLE IX IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO SEX DISCRIMINATION IN EDUCATION!!!!!!!
It is a paltry quasi-solution to centuries of engrained sexism in education, and is failing TO THIS DAY to protect students from discrimination and sexual violence.
— Heron Greenesmith, Esq. (@herong) January 21, 2021
Legally it is.
(TERFs and transphobes will tell you that women have a "right" to education here in the US, and a "right" to play sports.
And that trans people are "erasing" or "taking away" or "diluting" that right.
Um.
Huh??
— Heron Greenesmith, Esq. (@herong) January 21, 2021
This person seems to be almost on the verge of acknowledging the incoherence in this Twitter rant… almost.
(The US Women's Soccer team called. They'd like to know where their right to play soccer is.
Or does that right not extend to equal pay, equal faculties, and equal sponsorship deals?
Oh yeeaahhh, it's cause THERE IS NO RIGHT TO PLAY SPORTS IN THE U.S.
— Heron Greenesmith, Esq. (@herong) January 21, 2021
The U.S. Women’s Soccer team is not only inferior to the U.S. Men’s Soccer team, they even get their butts kicked by amateur early teen boys. Why? Not because of differences in “gender identity” but due to actual physical differences between the sexes.
(Like many bigots, TERFs and transphobes are constructing a false situation far different than reality, both legally and socially, then arguing that trans people are changing that false situation.
— Heron Greenesmith, Esq. (@herong) January 21, 2021
TERFs ain’t constructing false realities when it comes to biological differences between the sexes.
(The reality for women in sports is:
– rampant sexual violence
– no pay
– no spon con
– horrible facilitiesTrans people playing sports impacts exactly none of that.
— Heron Greenesmith, Esq. (@herong) January 21, 2021
Aside from same-sex sexual harassment, the reality off women’s sports is based on objective biological reality.
(Just to finish on a more philosophical note, the patriarchy and other systems of oppression have a vested interest in establishing a system of negative rights.
— Heron Greenesmith, Esq. (@herong) January 21, 2021
Negative rights and equality under the law is a rather ineffective way to create a “system of oppression”.
Just sayin’.
There are a handful of additional tweets, but nothing that isn’t ignorable.
Pingback: In The Mailbox: 02.04.21 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain