thedrdonna
"Not a real" DrDonna
thedrdonna

Except most people don’t team up with Nazis to promote Skittles. But TERFs have a history of teaming up with other reactionaries (which, yes, include folks who are down at the fascistic end of the spectrum) to further their goals of stripping trans folks’ humanity.

You’re gonna absolutely shit when you hear about complete androgen insensitivity or de la Chapelle syndrome.

I’m gonna dismiss you yes because you’re clearly asking questions in bad faith, but for some people it’s possible to recognize that trans women are women, while also recognizing that anyone who has elevated levels of testosterone in their system (like Caster Semenya, who is also a woman fyi) will have some advantages

I am just saying if you pick one side or the other, that biological gender either matters or it doesn’t matter when it comes to sports participation“

Worked for me. I didn’t have all them issues you listed, just wasn’t the right gender or sex. Detransitioners exist, yes, but to use them as evidence that being trans is some sort of passing fad is literally the same playbook as the people who point to ex-gays as proof that being gay is a “lifestyle choice”.

I mean, being closeted is also not like known for being a soothing balm on one’s mental health.

Except that people who support trans people in sports aren’t saying “gender doesn’t matter”. We’re mostly saying “trans women who have been on estrogen and anti-androgens for a few years have no notable advantage over cis women”, which is very different from the straw man you’ve constructed here.

True. But that means it is all the more important that we don’t compromise with people acting in bad faith. 

Nah.

I’m not sure that’s a good goal to have. Our ideas of fairness are not necessarily a democracy-even if 99 people out of 100 think something is fair, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is. And when you are asking people who have a vested interest in the outcome, in narrowing their competitive field, it’s hard to

“Read every single linked article” is not the same as “read either of literally the first two links provided in the article, and stop making whiny comments belying your own laziness.”

It’s a blog article, not a wiki entry. You can’t complain about there not being context when the context is provided, you’re just too lazy to click through literally either of the first two links in this article and read just the headline.

So that’s one way that’s ridiculous.

I saw that too! It actually kind of underlines what I said here: https://www.theroot.com/1848517986

So, uh, what are the “ridiculous reasons”? I agree this is a hugely important issue, but also the headline writes a check that the article’s body does not cash.

https://www.theroot.com/1848517986

https://www.theroot.com/1848517986

https://www.theroot.com/1848517986

https://www.theroot.com/1848517986

https://www.theroot.com/1848517986