I keep rereading the chilling Singer interview because it demonstrates how casually ableism slides into cissexism and vice versa. The gender-critical feminist argument in favor of "biological sex" essentializes sex as a dimorphic category, which only makes sense within... 1/

an ableist framework that distributes value to bodyminds based on their adherence to norms. The "science" behind dyadic sex depends entirely on the assumption that because most people *are* a certain way, all people *should be* a certain way. This is quintessential ableism. 2/

Too often are conversations about disability discrimination reduced to policing language (e.g., the "r" word) or addressing environmental barriers to accessibility (e.g., a lack of ramps). But ableism is also a form of structural violence, just like racism or sexism. 3/

Ableism, simply put, is the idealization of some embodyminded characteristics over others. Such idealization not only informs how we talk to each other and how we build buildings but also how we legislate the value of a life: enter Singer's suggestion to murder disabled babies 4/

If we idealize only a small fraction of bodyminds, we necessarily devalue people whose bodyminds are different. The greater the perceived difference from the norm, the less value is accorded. For Singer, intellectual disabilities present the greatest possible divergence... 5/

from human normativity. In fact, he has repeatedly suggested that people with intellectual disabilities mark the threshold between humans and non-human animals (see @sunaura_taylor). That Singer is now embracing a gender-critical feminist platform should be no surprise. 6/

Gender-critical feminists frequently rehearse arguments that invoke pathological models of trans existence. These arguments both instantiate rhetorical distance between trans people and cis normativity and strip trans people of value because of said distance. This is ableism. 7/

Now, Singer and gender-critical feminists will try to frame their arguments compassionately. J. K. Rowling did as much last year when she appealed to the pity she has for trans women. But compassion bereft of political action nothing more than a value judgement. 8/

Feeling bad for a person's life without putting forth effort to improve the conditions of their life is not compassion. It's just feeling bad about who you believe that person to be. It's to confuse the conditions of a person's life with their interiority. It is essentialism. 9/

And that's what this all boils down to. Singer and gender-critical feminists alike essentialize trans and disabled people as nothing more than deviations from cis-ablenormativity. As deviations, our lives are not particularly worth living and, worse yet... 10/

pose threats to the livelihoods of normative others. What better solution to the problem of worthless qua threatening lives than to end them? Or so Singer would argue. And given their support of anti-trans legislation, so would gender-critical feminists. This is murder. 11/

And murder is what ableism and cissexism often are. If not murder outright, then arguments seeking to justify disabled and trans death, to normalize it, and to make it seem inevitable. Because if we're not like them, so they suggest, what's the point of being at all? 12/12