I can't stand how everyone who questions whether Lia Thomas' participation is fair is knee-jerk labeled a "transphobe."
Believe it or not, it is possible to question the fairness of her participating alongside women who underwent estrogen dominant puberty and development, and not be a transphobe.
Do you question whether or not it's fair for Michael Phelps with his physical advantages to compete with less physically gifted male swimmers? Do you question the fairness of 7 foot tall basketball players competing in the NBA alongside 6'4 and under players? In sports there is always is a talent differential.
The competitive edge that Michael Phelps' physical advantages gave him over his closest male competitors at the peak of his career measured less than 0.5%.
Phelps' edge over the top female swimmers of his era was 9-13% - which is the usual performance gap between females and males in swimming.
At the 2004 Olympics, Phelps won the 200m butterfly with a time of 51.25 seconds. The second place man had a time of 51.29 seconds. That's a performance gap of 0.08%.
Phelps beat the 8th place male finisher by 2.56%.
By contrast, Phelps' winning time in the 2004 men's Olympic 100m butterfly was 12.56% faster than the winning time of the female swimmer who won the same event that year in the women's category.
There have been many elite female swimmers over the years like Sylvia Poll, Claudia Poll, and Missy Franklin who have physical features such as unusually tall height (the three are 6'4, 6'3 and 6'2 respectively), large feet, and enormous shoulder width and long arms resulting in vast wingspan that together have given them natural advantages over their competitors too. But all around the world at every level of swimming, from junior club level to the Olympics, males consistently outperform females by about 10-12%. And swimming, along with running, is a sport where the male-female gap is the lowest. In some sports, the gap is 50% - and in particular activities like throwing a ball or a punch, the male advantage is 160%-350%.
The performance gaps between the male and female competitors in the 100m butterfly finals at the 2004, 2008 and 2012 Olympics were as follows:
Do you question whether or not it's fair for Michael Phelps with his physical advantages to compete with less physically gifted male swimmers? Do you question the fairness of 7 foot tall basketball players competing in the NBA alongside 6'4 and under players? In sports there is always is a talent differential.
The competitive edge that Michael Phelps' physical advantages gave him over his closest male competitors at the peak of his career measured less than 0.5%.
Phelps' edge over the top female swimmers of his era was 9-13% - which is the usual performance gap between females and males in swimming.
At the 2004 Olympics, Phelps won the 200m butterfly with a time of 51.25 seconds. The second place man had a time of 51.29 seconds. That's a performance gap of 0.08%.
Phelps beat the 8th place male finisher by 2.56%.
By contrast, Phelps' winning time in the 2004 men's Olympic 100m butterfly was 12.56% faster than the winning time of the female swimmer who won the same event that year in the women's category.
There have been many elite female swimmers over the years like Sylvia Poll, Claudia Poll, and Missy Franklin who have physical features such as unusually tall height (the three are 6'4, 6'3 and 6'2 respectively), large feet, and enormous shoulder width and long arms resulting in vast wingspan that together have given them natural advantages over their competitors too. But all around the world at every level of swimming, from junior club level to the Olympics, males consistently outperform females by about 10-12%. And swimming, along with running, is a sport where the male-female gap is the lowest. In some sports, the gap is 50% - and in particular activities like throwing a ball or a punch, the male advantage is 160%-350%.
The performance gaps between the male and female competitors in the 100m butterfly finals at the 2004, 2008 and 2012 Olympics were as follows:
This is excellent analysis. I'm sure you will be rebuffed with solely anecdotal responses in complete alignment with the left's narrative on this. There will not be any reliable data driven response to this specific comparison.
It should also be noted that many of "super swimmer" Michael Phelps' world records have since been broken, so it's obviously an absurd take from the start. He only has one individual WR (400 IM) remaining, with the rest being relay WRs. So much for his alleged physical advantages.
The basketball idea is even more ridiculous because it's a position-drive sport and most players are selected for, and specialize in, very specific functions specifically due to their size and physical attributes. A center cannot defend a point guard any better than a point guard can defend a center. Do you question the fairness of an NFL lineman being 320 pounds compared to a WR who is 190? Of course not because it's totally moot - they hardly ever interact during the game.
But not a gender differential. How would you feel about Phelps or LeBron competing against women?
If they sincerely identified as women I would has no problem with it.
I sincerely believe that is a farcical view. "Women" do not have penis, testicles and male chromosomes. Identifying as a woman does not make them women. They a trans gender, which is its own category.
But biological sex is not. And it has very real and marked effects on athletic performance. One year of testosterone blockers does not undo 2 decades of biological sex.
Correct. If those blockers worked, Thomas would be the #462 ranked swimmer, not #1. The evidence is irrefutable.
It isn't. Trans athletes do not lose all their biological advantages.
You say I’m your post ‘the left’ - I’d consider myself broadly on the left and have to say most folks of the left I talk to have views not much different to yours and think this guy swimming for women’s team is ridiculous. Not sure on % but I personally think this is a fringe view that maybe 5% are ok with and when more people here about these type of stories 70%-80% of country will be against it - 15% won’t care and still only 5% will think ok.
Correct. If those blockers worked, Thomas would be the #462 ranked swimmer, not #1. The evidence is irrefutable.
It isn't. Trans athletes do not lose all their biological advantages.
I think we're saying the same thing. I'm saying if the blockers actually worked, then Thomas would be roughly the 462nd best "female" swimmer as that was his ranking as a male. Obviously they don't work because she is instead the #1 ranked "female" due to her innate male advantage.
You say I’m your post ‘the left’ - I’d consider myself broadly on the left and have to say most folks of the left I talk to have views not much different to yours and think this guy swimming for women’s team is ridiculous. Not sure on % but I personally think this is a fringe view that maybe 5% are ok with and when more people here about these type of stories 70%-80% of country will be against it - 15% won’t care and still only 5% will think ok.
You may not agree with this but the politicians on 'the left' have made it a priority to allow and enforce this. Joe Biden signed an executive order on Day 1 that protects a Lia Thomas's right to humiliate women in the pool and locker room. You can be against it but as long as you are voting for people who are for it, you are supporting it.
01.20.2021 Signs executive order that directs all federal agencies to implement the Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock decision and interpreting the federal ban on sex discrimination (via the Civil Rights Act 1964) to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes. The order points to ending discrimination against transgender youth in school facilities including restrooms, locker rooms, and access to sports programs.
For 99% of women it is a biological condition, as it is for males.
"Gender is a social construct," looks like an argument, but it's actually begging the question--presuming the thing that remains to be proven. Some feminists (those now called TERFS) differenitate between sex and gender and assert that sex is real, while gender is a social construction. They're using the term gender to refer to things that are alleged to be sex differences but are, in fact, differences coercively imposed on sexed bodies by society. This is why they argue that gender should be abolished.
Most reasonable people would agree that some differences between men and women are not due to biology; they're due to socialization/culture. The problem is that it's very difficult to figure out which things are biology and which are culture. By simply asserting that gender is a social construct, they evade this complicated question. Additionally, because all of us develop within a culture, we probably cannot neatly divide the world into sex and gender. All of this said, the sex/gender distinction can be a helpful tool for thinking about the world and making arguments for respecting people's rights to express themselves however they want, regardless of sex.
HOWEVER, I suspect that bartholomew_maxwell is missing a big piece of the puzzle. This is the fact that current trans activism views sex and gender as social constructs. This is why so many argue that identifying as a woman makes one a woman. Try arguing that males should not be allowed to compete in women's categories because they have male advantage. Some will argue that transwomen can't have male advantage because they're women. This is disingenuous wordplay or a religious belief. Either way, it should not be be considered a valid argument in the public square. Quite simply, we're seeing factual reality subordinated to feeling states. As gender critical feminists have pointed out (those maligned as TERFS), it's also a movement that defines woman and man as social stereotypes, not distinct sex categories.
The really maddening aspect of this movement is that it allows males to dominate competitions, spaces, and even the words women use to talk about themselves and their bodies while calling those males women--sometimes even calling them female. "This can't be misogynistic because Lea is just as much of a woman as you are!"
I'm sick of the gaslighting. I'm expecially sick of the women who carry water for these anti-woman, psychopathic ideas. These are the kind of women who tend to be higher in female-typical personality traits (compassion, self-sacrifice), but these traits make them more susceptible to manipulation by bad-faith ideas and actors. "Progressives" are now calling women who advocate for female rights nasty, bigoted, immoral..."Shut up, bigoted old women. Where's your compassion?"
If males want to live "as if" they are women, socially, or vice versa, I'm okay with that. I am not okay with asking society to believe that this social or aesthetic transition makes people proper members of the other sex category. This is dangerous to all people--probably most of all to trans people.
For 99% of women it is a biological condition, as it is for males.
"Gender is a social construct," looks like an argument, but it's actually begging the question--presuming the thing that remains to be proven. Some feminists (those now called TERFS) differenitate between sex and gender and assert that sex is real, while gender is a social construction. They're using the term gender to refer to things that are alleged to be sex differences but are, in fact, differences coercively imposed on sexed bodies by society. This is why they argue that gender should be abolished.
Most reasonable people would agree that some differences between men and women are not due to biology; they're due to socialization/culture. The problem is that it's very difficult to figure out which things are biology and which are culture. By simply asserting that gender is a social construct, they evade this complicated question. Additionally, because all of us develop within a culture, we probably cannot neatly divide the world into sex and gender. All of this said, the sex/gender distinction can be a helpful tool for thinking about the world and making arguments for respecting people's rights to express themselves however they want, regardless of sex.
HOWEVER, I suspect that bartholomew_maxwell is missing a big piece of the puzzle. This is the fact that current trans activism views sex and gender as social constructs. This is why so many argue that identifying as a woman makes one a woman. Try arguing that males should not be allowed to compete in women's categories because they have male advantage. Some will argue that transwomen can't have male advantage because they're women. This is disingenuous wordplay or a religious belief. Either way, it should not be be considered a valid argument in the public square. Quite simply, we're seeing factual reality subordinated to feeling states. As gender critical feminists have pointed out (those maligned as TERFS), it's also a movement that defines woman and man as social stereotypes, not distinct sex categories.
The really maddening aspect of this movement is that it allows males to dominate competitions, spaces, and even the words women use to talk about themselves and their bodies while calling those males women--sometimes even calling them female. "This can't be misogynistic because Lea is just as much of a woman as you are!"
I'm sick of the gaslighting. I'm expecially sick of the women who carry water for these anti-woman, psychopathic ideas. These are the kind of women who tend to be higher in female-typical personality traits (compassion, self-sacrifice), but these traits make them more susceptible to manipulation by bad-faith ideas and actors. "Progressives" are now calling women who advocate for female rights nasty, bigoted, immoral..."Shut up, bigoted old women. Where's your compassion?"
If males want to live "as if" they are women, socially, or vice versa, I'm okay with that. I am not okay with asking society to believe that this social or aesthetic transition makes people proper members of the other sex category. This is dangerous to all people--probably most of all to trans people.
Why do other species seem to have fairly well-defined sex and gender roles? After copulating and reproducing (sexual roles), why does the lion nurture the cubs while the lioness guards the pride (gender roles)? Are we still allowed to say lion and lioness, or is that like actor and actress?
You say I’m your post ‘the left’ - I’d consider myself broadly on the left and have to say most folks of the left I talk to have views not much different to yours and think this guy swimming for women’s team is ridiculous. Not sure on % but I personally think this is a fringe view that maybe 5% are ok with and when more people here about these type of stories 70%-80% of country will be against it - 15% won’t care and still only 5% will think ok.
You may not agree with this but the politicians on 'the left' have made it a priority to allow and enforce this. Joe Biden signed an executive order on Day 1 that protects a Lia Thomas's right to humiliate women in the pool and locker room. You can be against it but as long as you are voting for people who are for it, you are supporting it.
01.20.2021 Signs executive order that directs all federal agencies to implement the Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock decision and interpreting the federal ban on sex discrimination (via the Civil Rights Act 1964) to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes. The order points to ending discrimination against transgender youth in school facilities including restrooms, locker rooms, and access to sports programs.
Biden has nothing to do with transgender athlete rules at any level and if he was a card carrying transphobe, he wouldn’t have the power to ban them either.
Why would any Democrat politician want to allow and enforce transgender participation when such athletes are already allowed to do so? It’s considered to be an open issue mostly on the right.
"Gender is a social construct," looks like an argument, but it's actually begging the question--presuming the thing that remains to be proven. Some feminists (those now called TERFS) differenitate between sex and gender and assert that sex is real, while gender is a social construction. They're using the term gender to refer to things that are alleged to be sex differences but are, in fact, differences coercively imposed on sexed bodies by society. This is why they argue that gender should be abolished.
Most reasonable people would agree that some differences between men and women are not due to biology; they're due to socialization/culture. The problem is that it's very difficult to figure out which things are biology and which are culture. By simply asserting that gender is a social construct, they evade this complicated question. Additionally, because all of us develop within a culture, we probably cannot neatly divide the world into sex and gender. All of this said, the sex/gender distinction can be a helpful tool for thinking about the world and making arguments for respecting people's rights to express themselves however they want, regardless of sex.
HOWEVER, I suspect that bartholomew_maxwell is missing a big piece of the puzzle. This is the fact that current trans activism views sex and gender as social constructs. This is why so many argue that identifying as a woman makes one a woman. Try arguing that males should not be allowed to compete in women's categories because they have male advantage. Some will argue that transwomen can't have male advantage because they're women. This is disingenuous wordplay or a religious belief. Either way, it should not be be considered a valid argument in the public square. Quite simply, we're seeing factual reality subordinated to feeling states. As gender critical feminists have pointed out (those maligned as TERFS), it's also a movement that defines woman and man as social stereotypes, not distinct sex categories.
The really maddening aspect of this movement is that it allows males to dominate competitions, spaces, and even the words women use to talk about themselves and their bodies while calling those males women--sometimes even calling them female. "This can't be misogynistic because Lea is just as much of a woman as you are!"
I'm sick of the gaslighting. I'm expecially sick of the women who carry water for these anti-woman, psychopathic ideas. These are the kind of women who tend to be higher in female-typical personality traits (compassion, self-sacrifice), but these traits make them more susceptible to manipulation by bad-faith ideas and actors. "Progressives" are now calling women who advocate for female rights nasty, bigoted, immoral..."Shut up, bigoted old women. Where's your compassion?"
If males want to live "as if" they are women, socially, or vice versa, I'm okay with that. I am not okay with asking society to believe that this social or aesthetic transition makes people proper members of the other sex category. This is dangerous to all people--probably most of all to trans people.
Why do other species seem to have fairly well-defined sex and gender roles? After copulating and reproducing (sexual roles), why does the lion nurture the cubs while the lioness guards the pride (gender roles)? Are we still allowed to say lion and lioness, or is that like actor and actress?
Your view of the roles undertaken by lions (males) and lionesses (females) in the nurturing and rearing of lion cubs seems to be a reversal of the realities.
Lion cubs stay with their mothers and under mothers' protection and nurture for about 2-3 years. When a pregnant lioness nears the time she's to give birth, she leaves the pride and goes to a safe, secluded place like a nest of bushes, a sheltered ravine or a cave. There she will give birth, usually to one to four cubs. Because the cubs are tiny and defenseless, the lioness will remain with her cubs away from the rest of the pride for the first 6 weeks or so of the new cubs' lives.
One of the groups that female lions guard and protect newborn lion cubs from are adult male lions, including ones in their own pride. And including the newborn lion cubs' father.
Once the baby lions are old enough, the mother brings them to the pride. In a pride, the adult lionesses who've borne offspring raise their cubs collectively, forming creches where all the lion mothers pitch in to take care of their own and each others' cubs and help each other out. Whilst raising cubs, lion mothers perform many tasks which include nurturing, guarding, teaching and playing with their own and other lioness' cubs along with other standard lioness jobs such as hunting and patrolling and keeping an eye out for interlopers and dangers in order to protect the pride.
As cubs grow up, mothers and other female lionesses will continue to need to protect them from older cubs of both sexes who tend to be bullies, and often from various adult male members of the pride too.
Like infant humans, baby lions can't eat meat or other solids when newborn, in part because they are born without teeth. Lion cubs start growing baby teeth or "milk teeth" soon after birth, and when they are about 3 months old they begin eating little bits of meat.
From birth until they're old enough to live entirely from eating meat, lion cubs are kept alive and thriving by drinking the milk made by their mothers and other adult female members of the same pride. This involves suckling the teats of their mothers and other female relatives. Lion cubs suckle like this several times a day every day until weaning begins at age 6-9 months. The human equivalent is breastfeeding.
Lion fathers cannot and do not lactate and feed their young "mother's milk" from their bodies. Lactation and all the nuzzling, cuddling, snoozing together and other mother-child bonding that goes along with suckling are essential nurturing activities that male lions cannot and do not perform.
Yes, some adult male lions do play with, snuggle and nurture cubs.. But it's not true as you have suggested that the lion's share (LOL) of nurturing cubs is performed by male lions whilst female lions spend the bulk of their time doing guard duty instead of cub care.
Female cubs will remain with the pride they are born into for the rest of their lives. But when male cubs reach age 2-3 years, they get kicked out of the pride. This job of kicking them out is left to the adult members of the pride, including their fathers.
I would describe the roles that female and male lions play in the rearing of lion cubs as sex roles, not gender roles. In my view, sex describes the means by which millions of different plant and animal species reproduce and insure that species are perpetuated, whilst gender refers to roles, customs and stereotypes that are associated with humans of the two sexes that sometimes might be, or seem, related to sex and the perpetuation of our species, but which are not essential to it.
Sex in my view means male/female. Sex is a matter of biology, nature and material reality, and it's binary. By contrast, gender is masculine/feminine.
Gender is a set of narrow, confining ideas that different cultures have created about the roles, modes of dress, ways of grooming, behaviors, interests and personality traits which each culture associates with, and sees as appropriate for, boys/men and girls/women at a particular point in history. Whereas sex is binary, gender - like height, weight, body shape, hairiness, vocal pitch, etc - occurs across a wide spectrum amongst the human population, with considerable overlap between the two sexes.
Most human babies, children and adults have personalities and personal styles that contain a mix of elements that could be seen as masculine or feminine by the standards of one's own or another culture. But with the vanishingly rare exception of some individuals with a small handful of DSD conditions, all of us can very easily be categorized as either male or female - and others can tell our sex at first glance.
I think gender is a human construction, not something that other animal species engage in. IMO, lions behave the way they do when mating and rearing their young because of sex, a matter of nature affecting myriad animal and plant species. Not because of gender, a matter of culture created by humans that I'm wary about projecting onto other animals.
At any rate, the way you describe the supposed "gender roles" of male and female lions in rearing offspring sounds to me more like what happens with the fictional elephant who heroically steps in when the the flighty, lazy mama bird Mayzie abandons her offspring in the Seuss classic, Horton Hatches the Egg, than what actually happens amongst RL lions in the wild
Why do other species seem to have fairly well-defined sex and gender roles? After copulating and reproducing (sexual roles), why does the lion nurture the cubs while the lioness guards the pride (gender roles)? Are we still allowed to say lion and lioness, or is that like actor and actress?
Your view of the roles undertaken by lions (males) and lionesses (females) in the nurturing and rearing of lion cubs seems to be a reversal of the realities.
Lion cubs stay with their mothers and under mothers' protection and nurture for about 2-3 years. When a pregnant lioness nears the time she's to give birth, she leaves the pride and goes to a safe, secluded place like a nest of bushes, a sheltered ravine or a cave. There she will give birth, usually to one to four cubs. Because the cubs are tiny and defenseless, the lioness will remain with her cubs away from the rest of the pride for the first 6 weeks or so of the new cubs' lives.
One of the groups that female lions guard and protect newborn lion cubs from are adult male lions, including ones in their own pride. And including the newborn lion cubs' father.
Once the baby lions are old enough, the mother brings them to the pride. In a pride, the adult lionesses who've borne offspring raise their cubs collectively, forming creches where all the lion mothers pitch in to take care of their own and each others' cubs and help each other out. Whilst raising cubs, lion mothers perform many tasks which include nurturing, guarding, teaching and playing with their own and other lioness' cubs along with other standard lioness jobs such as hunting and patrolling and keeping an eye out for interlopers and dangers in order to protect the pride.
As cubs grow up, mothers and other female lionesses will continue to need to protect them from older cubs of both sexes who tend to be bullies, and often from various adult male members of the pride too.
Like infant humans, baby lions can't eat meat or other solids when newborn, in part because they are born without teeth. Lion cubs start growing baby teeth or "milk teeth" soon after birth, and when they are about 3 months old they begin eating little bits of meat.
From birth until they're old enough to live entirely from eating meat, lion cubs are kept alive and thriving by drinking the milk made by their mothers and other adult female members of the same pride. This involves suckling the teats of their mothers and other female relatives. Lion cubs suckle like this several times a day every day until weaning begins at age 6-9 months. The human equivalent is breastfeeding.
Lion fathers cannot and do not lactate and feed their young "mother's milk" from their bodies. Lactation and all the nuzzling, cuddling, snoozing together and other mother-child bonding that goes along with suckling are essential nurturing activities that male lions cannot and do not perform.
Yes, some adult male lions do play with, snuggle and nurture cubs.. But it's not true as you have suggested that the lion's share (LOL) of nurturing cubs is performed by male lions whilst female lions spend the bulk of their time doing guard duty instead of cub care.
Female cubs will remain with the pride they are born into for the rest of their lives. But when male cubs reach age 2-3 years, they get kicked out of the pride. This job of kicking them out is left to the adult members of the pride, including their fathers.
I would describe the roles that female and male lions play in the rearing of lion cubs as sex roles, not gender roles. In my view, sex describes the means by which millions of different plant and animal species reproduce and insure that species are perpetuated, whilst gender refers to roles, customs and stereotypes that are associated with humans of the two sexes that sometimes might be, or seem, related to sex and the perpetuation of our species, but which are not essential to it.
Sex in my view means male/female. Sex is a matter of biology, nature and material reality, and it's binary. By contrast, gender is masculine/feminine.
Gender is a set of narrow, confining ideas that different cultures have created about the roles, modes of dress, ways of grooming, behaviors, interests and personality traits which each culture associates with, and sees as appropriate for, boys/men and girls/women at a particular point in history. Whereas sex is binary, gender - like height, weight, body shape, hairiness, vocal pitch, etc - occurs across a wide spectrum amongst the human population, with considerable overlap between the two sexes.
Most human babies, children and adults have personalities and personal styles that contain a mix of elements that could be seen as masculine or feminine by the standards of one's own or another culture. But with the vanishingly rare exception of some individuals with a small handful of DSD conditions, all of us can very easily be categorized as either male or female - and others can tell our sex at first glance.
I think gender is a human construction, not something that other animal species engage in. IMO, lions behave the way they do when mating and rearing their young because of sex, a matter of nature affecting myriad animal and plant species. Not because of gender, a matter of culture created by humans that I'm wary about projecting onto other animals.
At any rate, the way you describe the supposed "gender roles" of male and female lions in rearing offspring sounds to me more like what happens with the fictional elephant who heroically steps in when the the flighty, lazy mama bird Mayzie abandons her offspring in the Seuss classic, Horton Hatches the Egg, than what actually happens amongst RL lions in the wild
The two main take ways - lionesses really are incredible animals, and Lia Thomas will never birth a child.
For 99% of women it is a biological condition, as it is for males.
"Gender is a social construct," looks like an argument, but it's actually begging the question--presuming the thing that remains to be proven. Some feminists (those now called TERFS) differenitate between sex and gender and assert that sex is real, while gender is a social construction. They're using the term gender to refer to things that are alleged to be sex differences but are, in fact, differences coercively imposed on sexed bodies by society. This is why they argue that gender should be abolished.
Most reasonable people would agree that some differences between men and women are not due to biology; they're due to socialization/culture. The problem is that it's very difficult to figure out which things are biology and which are culture. By simply asserting that gender is a social construct, they evade this complicated question. Additionally, because all of us develop within a culture, we probably cannot neatly divide the world into sex and gender. All of this said, the sex/gender distinction can be a helpful tool for thinking about the world and making arguments for respecting people's rights to express themselves however they want, regardless of sex.
HOWEVER, I suspect that bartholomew_maxwell is missing a big piece of the puzzle. This is the fact that current trans activism views sex and gender as social constructs. This is why so many argue that identifying as a woman makes one a woman. Try arguing that males should not be allowed to compete in women's categories because they have male advantage. Some will argue that transwomen can't have male advantage because they're women. This is disingenuous wordplay or a religious belief. Either way, it should not be be considered a valid argument in the public square. Quite simply, we're seeing factual reality subordinated to feeling states. As gender critical feminists have pointed out (those maligned as TERFS), it's also a movement that defines woman and man as social stereotypes, not distinct sex categories.
The really maddening aspect of this movement is that it allows males to dominate competitions, spaces, and even the words women use to talk about themselves and their bodies while calling those males women--sometimes even calling them female. "This can't be misogynistic because Lea is just as much of a woman as you are!"
I'm sick of the gaslighting. I'm expecially sick of the women who carry water for these anti-woman, psychopathic ideas. These are the kind of women who tend to be higher in female-typical personality traits (compassion, self-sacrifice), but these traits make them more susceptible to manipulation by bad-faith ideas and actors. "Progressives" are now calling women who advocate for female rights nasty, bigoted, immoral..."Shut up, bigoted old women. Where's your compassion?"
If males want to live "as if" they are women, socially, or vice versa, I'm okay with that. I am not okay with asking society to believe that this social or aesthetic transition makes people proper members of the other sex category. This is dangerous to all people--probably most of all to trans people.
You write with much thought but it is all wasted on the racist Armstrong.
He will not deal with one phrase without having an insult awaiting.Most foul excrement vile ones.