I think it’s kinda fucked up to lay this at Hopper’s feet. She’s not really the villain in this scenario.

Yeah, that wording puzzled me, as well. Why didn’t the author just state that Devins is black himself?

Haha! Have you seen that episode of 30 Rock where Liz dates Jon Hamm?

You can’t “exploit” it if you don’t know you have it

Yeah, beauty and sex-appeal are double-edged swords in that they can expose you to greater threats of unwanted advances, violence, dehumanization, etc....BUT at the same time, they’re so incredibly powerful when applied correctly. As you well know.

Oh, I agree with that, too. It can absolutely be threatening and intimidating, depending on context.

I’m the same way, but from the other side of the equation! I CANNOT imagine dating a guy close to me in height.

Yeah it’s a thing. I’m 5'3", my husband’s 6'2", and I. LOVE. IT. There’s no intellectualizing or even properly articulating it. Every time we hug and I look up at him looming over me, this deeply visceral sensation hits me and I just overwhelming want to...procreate with him. *shrug*

Hmm, that I’d have to disagree with. While beauty/sex appeal can often render a woman vulnerable or targeted, it many circumstances it also confers a formidable amount of power and influence.

OK but do you understand that money isn’t going to Walmart? If you buy a Walmart shirt at a thrift shop, your dollars are going to the THRIFT SHOP. Period.

Damn lady. She was shitting on WALMART, not its shoppers. I get that you identify with it and carry old scars from childhood, but your comments are hella projecting. Walmart is objectively terrible and if people CAN boycott it, they absolutely should not be shamed for doing so. And I can’t believe I even have to type…

I was kind of with you until your response to Jane just now. She laid out an extremely incisive and compelling invitation for you to reconsider, or at least clarify, your stance...and you glommed on to the “accusation” that you were conservative and ignored everything else.

feminists should abandon traditional women’s issues and “center trans women” instead.

A lot like when people argue (less so these days) that homosexuality is not a “choice—” as if whether or not people choose their sexuality is what makes it okay/not-okay.

You’re projecting a hell of a lot onto me and muddling what ought to be a nuanced exchange.

Just because there’s more at stake doesn’t mean that the binary doesn’t exist and isn’t rooted in biological and scientific reality.

I get it. Personally, as a ciswoman (dislike that usage but saying it here to accommodate people’s feelings), I’m not into into defining womanhood by reproduction, motherhood, or anything associated with those. I think it’s reductive and limiting.

I’m skeptical of how much (if at all) born sex is shaped by identity, but it does make sense that medical transition (and the associated hormone therapy) would augment your original sex characteristics drastically.

Of course not. But that doesn’t mean that ciswomen are banned from citing those experiences as integral to their womanhood.

Are trans people really outliers wrt biological sex? Assuming their chromosomes, gonads, and external genitals are in alignment (as they are 99% of the time) - their sex is their sex.