Women's Suffrage - we could have identified into it after all

[JustTurtlesAllTheWayDown]

mobile.twitter.com/9billiontigers/status/1210697811034927104

According to this person, not only could women have had suffrage earlier if we'd just identified as trans men, but we got it due to the masculinizing influence of the suffragettes and still got suffrage earlier than trans women who still don't have it apparently.
Incredible lack of any empathy or knowledge of women's history.
And over 1000 likes. I mean I know its twitter, but still.
They have some points around the labelling of gender non-conformity as mental illness, but completely ignore the fact that this was used against women too, for pretty much any reason going.

It makes no sense. Women spent their lives imprisoned in psychiatric hospitals for the crime of running around with boys as teenagers. Women could be arrested an imprisoned for sitting alone in a pub. Women were banned from owning property or joining a guild, or graduating from university.

So how were they supposed to get enough privilege to announce they were actually men?

Any chance of a screenshot? It’s telling me I’m banned from seeing it!

It's a fairly long thread so I won't screenshot all but here are a couple of the low lights

It's American/

In the UK, no one is ever disenfranchised for committing any offence, even electoral fraud. Incarcerated prisoners usually may not vote, but even lifers on licence can vote if they're not banged up.

I think the main issue I have, is that they can't just have a thread about how gender non conforming people have been disenfranchised or discriminated against. Most people would agree with that.
No, they have to rewrite history into a version where women weren't really that oppressed and were actually the privileged class over male people.
Anyone still thinking this isn't an anti-feminist moment needs to give their head a wobble.

From this thread (worth reading for comparable dates in other countries including UK):

Until 1900, married women couldn't own property in all states.
Until 1920, women couldn't vote.
Until 1971, states could bar women from practicing law.
Until 1974, women needed a man to get a credit card.

Now politicians pretend sex isn't even real.

twitter.com/Bleedinheart2MD/status/1192947525180899328?s=20

That twitter thread is the very definition of revisionism.

They are taking the history of Jim Crow and attempting to apply it to TW. Technically, Black men and (later) Black women had the right to vote in the US, but not until the mid-1960s passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were they de facto allowed to vote in great swaths of the country, because of various laws implemented by states — such as literacy tests and poll tax requirements prior to voting.

A better analog for the situation TW faced is the same that faced gays and lesbians — that engaging in homosexual sex was historically a felony and, yes, in the US felons lose their right to vote (that’s starting to change.) The people MOST impacted by this loss of suffrage are Black Americans, most esp. Black males, because of American’s racist “War on Drugs” which disproportionately targets Black Americans.

America has a long history of criminalising sex outside of heterosexual marriage (and a long history of permitting marital rape.) During WW1, American women suspected of engaging in sex outside of marriage were placed into labour camps, because they were seen as detrimental to the war effort.

And it’s also true that from 1905 to the mid-1940s, American women who married foreign nationals LOST their citizenship and could only reapply for citizenship if and when their husbands became naturalised citizens.

There is no way the situation faced by TW is analagous to having a law on the books that forbids an entire class of people from voting due to the fact that they were born female and then having to fight for 70 years to get 35 states plus 2/3 of both houses of Congress to agree that this class of people are permitted to vote.

At the time women won the right to vote — what was a TW? There were no hormones to take, no surgeries. A TW was, in fact, a cross-dresser; it was impossible to be anything else. All that TW had to do, to exercise their right to vote, assuming no felony convictions and that they were white, was show up at the polling booth in male clothing.

All that TW had to do, to exercise their right to vote, assuming no felony convictions and that they were white, was show up at the polling booth in male clothing.

There seems to be a lot of conflating of 'I can't do it' with 'I can do it but won't because it doesn't affirm me'.
I'm thinking of the non-binary heterosexual couple who sent a petition to Theresa May demanding the right for non-binary people to get married.
Clearly, they already could get legally married so what they were really demanding was to change the part of the marriage certificate that said what sex they were.
Not the same thing at all.