My speciality: government decisions on sex classification. Member Institute for Advanced Study. CUNY. n+1, Boston Review, New York Review, Yale Review
Brooklyn, NY
Joined January 2010
- Tweets2.9K
- Following785
- Followers3K
- Likes28.1K
Pinned Tweet
My piece on the havoc wrought by Trump's "Defending Women" executive order--it goes far beyond harming trans people. newyorker.com/news/the-lede/…
Paisley Currah retweeted
BREAKING:
Here’s the 60 Minutes Segment Trump and CBS News Executives Don’t Want You to See
Video (no paywall): bit.ly/4qn6Jn5
I have a piece in the current issue of the New York Review of Books on the anti-trans agenda and the dangers it poses for the rights of cis women.
nybooks.com/articles/2025/12…
Paisley Currah retweeted
Anti-trans laws “ultimately insist that…the ‘material reality’ of sex ought to be the basis of all norms and expectations about how one should live…. This is exactly the constraint that feminism has long fought to undo.” —@paisleycurrah go.nybooks.com/4rSKzL6
Paisley Currah retweeted
Paisley Currah (@paisleycurrah) on how the conservative strategy to remove trans rights sets the stage for legally enforcing gender stereotypes go.nybooks.com/3Mpk6EI
Paisley Currah retweeted
Our Holiday Issue is now online, with Frances Wilson on Patricia Lockwood, Lucy Sante on Joe Brainard’s comics, Susan Tallman on plundering museums, @paisleycurrah on the attack on trans rights, @agordonreed on Thomas Jefferson and liberty, and much more. go.nybooks.com/4ijmcSo
Turns out Trump's "Defending Women" executive order is not, in fact, about defending women's health. It has led to the removal of of a lot of crucial information about women's health. This just out in a peer reviewed article by @pa_homan and Susan Short. sciencedirect.com/science/ar…
I wrote about this a while back: xitter.cf/paisleycurrah/status/1…
My piece on the havoc wrought by Trump's "Defending Women" executive order--it goes far beyond harming trans people. newyorker.com/news/the-lede/…
Or as @LornaBracewell put it, don’t let UT Austin become the University of Austin.
Paisley Currah retweeted
Don’t usually post on law, but an op ed in the NYT today falsely claims, about the transgender military ban, that in 2019, SCOTUS “cleared the way for a materially indistinguishable policy to go into effect.” No, it did not. Shocking to see such blatant falsity. Truth matters.
Re-upping this for no particular reason.
In December, during arguments in Skrmetti, Justice Coney Barrett opined, "we don't have a history of de jure discrimination against transgender people." I was flabbergasted. So I chronicled some of the most egregious examples for @Law360 tinyurl.com/yt2jbh5k
Just out--I wrote a piece for the New Yorker explaining how the effects of Trump's anti-trans attacks go far beyond trans communities. newyorker.com/news/the-lede/…
The mainstream media has a long, but not distinguished, history of getting social movements wrong at the time. Here's my colleague
@jeannetheoharis on how the media covered MLK. time.com/7271258/newspapers-…
About 80% of women change their name when they get married. Only about 50% of US citizens have passports. Passports cost $130, plus processing fees at post offices and pictures. All this math adds up to massive voter suppression.
Let me break down the SAVE Act, which Congress is voting on this week.
If you got married and changed your name, your ID will not match your birth certificate.
If you do not have a passport, and your ID does not match your birth certificate, you cannot prove your citizenship, according to the SAVE Act. You will not be able to vote.
The SAVE Act will disenfranchise tens of millions of women in America. It’s blatant voter suppression.