intellectual titans over on twitter. just, wow. "this guy is obviously wrong for reasons I won't explain. If anyone else wants to watch the video and tell me what he said let me know."

jesse had a lot to say about this

and by a lot i mean this is the best criticism he could muster. at worst, a minor definitional mistake.

i take it that someone who talked so much with guyatt himself might have some perspective though. just a thought.

And then, just to be really scummy, she equates the idea that DSD people complicate how we traditionally define sex with overtly sexualizing them, and that the term intersex is purely a motivated name given by postmodern gender theorists.

...invalidate the usefulness of sex data. Saying, without citation, that people with DSDs being classified under the LGBT+ umbrella is an "unhelpful error" with nothing to back it. Also I understand that they're not a sexuality or purely a personal identity, but they definitely have a community.

but that's all technical stuff, what really bothers me is just how blatant sullivan is that this is a partisan document. one example is her saying that the tiny proportion of trans people captured by these statistics will taint them while also saying that the minority of people with DSD's can't...

she also proposes that trans individuals are potentially gaming law enforcement since they don't need to inform police of a name and gender change based on this excerpt from one bit of guidance.

here's the problem: trans name changes, the real relevant part here, are usually done by deed poll.

probably the most drastic outcome sullivan proposes is that by allowing trans women to change gender markers regardless of transition status, they won't get important screening referrals for cancer. She provides nothing to evidence this claim.

he's trying to get people to report you to the police now. absolutely ghoulish.

i was very confused when i saw him post this