Some people lie for Jesus, other people lie for boys can be girls.
No, that’s not what we’re talking about. It’s not “punishing” boys to say they can’t play on the girls’ teams, any more than it’s “punishing” boys to say they can’t punch girls in the face. They still have the outlets and joys available to their peers – including playing mixed-sex sports when that’s available.
The father on the Chris Hayes segment must have been raving, because no one is talking about not letting trans children live.
Liar.
Comments
23 responses to “Not a single example?”
Anyone asked to pick out the women in that picture would not select Veronica Rachel Rhys Ivy McKinnon. If you were on a website where they verify you are not a bot by telling you to pick out the [X], anyone who got that picture and were told to pick out the women would be doomed. They would not pick out the transwoman as a woman.
The size differential in that picture is so striking.
Must say I’m not a huge fan of this site, but really love this one.
https://babylonbee.com/news/instead-of-traditional-warfare-chinese-military-will-now-be-trained-to-shout-wrong-pronouns-at-american-troops
Also notable: who’s manspreading?
BKiSA, one must protect the balls from jock itch, mustn’t one.
“Some people lie for Jesus, other people lie for boys can be girls.”
And the common element is that they are both faith systems.
I wonder how the Williamses would feel about being on that list of cheating males.
That picture is precious.
And, yes, Catwhisperer, there is a stunning problem with Strangio’s list. What’s that called, misogynoir? Strangio badly needs a privilege check.
Er, no one put the Williams sisters on that list but you, Chase.
Interesting how Chasio makes a distinction between misogyny and transmisogyny, affirming there is a difference while overall and elsewhere denying there is difference, yet again. Since there is no such thing as transmisogyny, you could successfully decipher it using the current usage of ‘trans’ which is basically phony, fake, pseudo, etc. So a phony woman hater is basically not a woman hater? This is the defining feature of the trans cult jargon, it’s utterly confusing and largely meaningless. These little twitterings of Chasio’s are short and underdeveloped, but they sure are loaded with illogic, deceit, and hypocricy.
The word “transmisogyny” always rubs me wrong. It’s such a stupid word. It’s like transphobia, except that it gets to appropriate misogyny, too.
People have claimed Serena Williams is male. Strangio didn’t make that up.
https://www.businessinsider.com/serena-williams-responds-to-accusations-she-was-born-a-man-2018-5
It figures. Any woman who doesn’t meet the standard definitions of femininity is open to being accused of really being a man. And now that so many men are play-acting as women, I imagine it’s even worse. It should be easy enough to resolve, unless she is intersex. The characteristics of a woman born woman will be different even than someone who has taken hormones and had surgery.
As someone who is genuinely struggling with the basic validity of transgender philosophies and ideologies, I wonder what this community has to say about this article.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/
Maybe it’s some folks can’t handle a woman being the greatest of all time at anything, which Serena is considered to be in all of pro tennis. Absolutely no transwomen and very few men have even come close.
John, that article has already been discussed. Use the search function; you can find where Ophelia wrote about it.
It’s this one:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2021/scientific/
Thank you for the link. Sorry for not thinking to search first.
You’re welcome and that’s quite all right.
It seems strangely consistent that a TRA would lend credence to the preposterous and insulting idea that a big, strong woman who has borne a child was born a man. Only a TRA would be so delusional as to imagine that a man could bear a child.
iknklast:
This is, I think, one of the less talked about consequences of the trans phenomenon. When one sees a picture of a woman, it’s not particularly unreasonable to wonder whether it is, in fact, a picture of a woman. The more masculine or “masculine” (to differentiate between biology and society) she appears, the more reasonable that wonder becomes.
Re #16
The Scientific American post I linked to is different from that which you covered in http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2021/scientific/. I was previously unaware of the level of nuance that exists in the biology of sex determination described in https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/.
I definitely have some homework to do before I will feel confident in forming a firm opinion on this particular facet of this topic. I still wonder what this community thinks about the SA blog post, and would be most appreciative of any response: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/.
I know that I have seen good rebuttals to that “Stop Using Phony Science” article, but I haven’t found one that is familiar yet. Along the way, I found this, which I think is quite good. It was in video and tweet form, but the author has turned into a blog post, much more digestible that way I think.
https://theparadoxinstitute.com/blog/2020/07/24/a-response-to-stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/
@Sackbut
Thank you for finding and sharing this link! Zach Elliot’s perspective is illuminating.