I’m not saying Justine is wrong, exactly.

My thesis is that Natalie holds an eclectic mix of mutually contradictory theories without a clear framework to synthesize them.

Very clever to note, however, that I am a marxist feminist (a unified theory) and I find it frustrating that Natalie does not subscribe to marxism feminism. Its almost like this is a marxist feminist critique of contrapoints.

I don’t care that Natalie wants to discuss aesthetics in relation to transgender sociality, I care about the fact that in doing so she forwards an untenable approach to gender which fails to provide useful insight into how we might create a feminist praxis to combat gendered violence.

You have misread my criticism. I am not critiquing what Justine says (though I find it to have problems, pointed out elsewhere by others) but arguing that the entire pretense of the dialogue fails because Natalie wants a best of both worlds approach where we can situationally endorse theories which cannot be logically reconciled with each other.

I don’t need some random trans man to “transplain” anything to me, as a trans woman I am infinitely more familiar with the discussion Natalie depicts in The Aesthetic than you ever will be Nicholas.

You’re welcome.