On non-binary gender legal recognition: let's avoid a binary framework for understanding it. There are broadly 2 positions showing up on my timeline: Trans Rights and Trans Liberation: posited as mutually exclusive, binary postitions. They are not. /1

Trans Rights agendas are concerned with lack of representation, equal rights & legal recognition. When people experience exclusion, it feels logical to ask for inclusion. In and of itself this is a political dead-end (see: Caitlyn Jenner). This is often called trans-liberalism /2

Trans Liberation is concerned w/ understanding the systems of transphobia, misogyny, racism, classism, borders etc & how they are intwined. That legal gender recognition reinforces policies of policing, control & racism. It aims for removing legal gender entirely /3

It is right to critique trans liberalism as an end goal, and to be critically aware of the ways that it colludes with wider systems of oppression. I did this very thing recently when trans folks celebrated MI6's trans flag https://twitter.com/NMRLPH/status/1379042400224604164?s=20 /4

But, we should also understand that (a) it's not "bad" that people want to be included in a system in which they deal day to day with violences because of their exclusion and pragmatically, we are going to bring people with us by shaming or denouncing that desire. /5

(b) rights are also a by-product of liberatory politics. They are won on the way and at their best act as harm reduction, at worst result in splintering of a movement by picking off people via self-interest. Liberationists need to be smart not to let this divide&rule win. /6

I'm not suggesting it's easy to balance; we win rights as harm reduction on the way towards liberation, but they are used to co-opt/divide and rule. The only way I know through is by having rigorous and accountable political frameworks to organise from. /7

Much like we understand the idea of reformist reform & abolitionist reform in abolitionist movements: when do rights lead to a political dead-end, when do they remove power from oppressive structures, and when does how we respond to them collude with oppressive structures /8

So back to legal non-binary recognition: there are real parts of my life this will impact - healthcare, employment, relationships etc. But it's not my political end goal because I understand that there are real parts of my life it will harm; policing, hate crime, racism etc. /9

One of my biggest learnings from taking the position "I won't be part of the movement that wants to expand legalised marriage for LGBT+ people because it's a form of control and I want to abolish legal marriage" is that by so many of our voices not being at the table they... /10

... put us on the menu e.g. adding in the spousal veto which requires a married trans person to have their spouses legal consent to legally transition. We didn't stop the expansion of marriage, we let the rest of the movement use us to gain easy wins /11

So I think we need to widen the rhetoric on the discourse here to be oriented to bringing more of the movement with us & understand that for lots of non-binary people (most specifically, gender non-conforming, racialised, working class, disabled and trans fem/me NB people)... /12

... there are material & valid reasons for recognition & inclusion. The questions I'm asking myself at the moment are less about how to stop people campaigning for it, and more about how we utilise the movement energy towards a liberatory framework and away from a liberal one /13

In conclusion; I think we need to move away from a binary argument based on shaming each other, to a non-binary understanding of how rights & liberation work together in practice and in service of those most harmed by the structures that a trans liberation is concerned with. /14

I'm curious what other people think about this, what strategies people are using and how we use our political frameworks for building power? /15

@vicparsons_ says it with more nuance and detail here: https://twitter.com/pinknews/status/1389909489651003393