I'm not sure I follow her argument here. Does she mean that fundamentally the presence of male genitalia in these spaces is the problem? That a transgender female is not acceptable in these spaces unless birth genitalia is removed at which point it becomes acceptable (independent of any other changes i.e hormonal)?
And if so how does the presence of male genitalia make the space less safe? I assume because males have a higher rate of committing sexual assaults (which I guess is a fair argument). But then why would a penis attached to an otherwise female body pose a problem since I assume it is male neurobiology and hormones that drive sexual assault behavior (not the genitalia)
She emphasizes this with a tautology: >Trans women are trans women
Which deviates from the trans-positive claim of "trans women are women".
Her position is fairly clear in that she doesn't think of trans-women as being interchangeable with "real" women.
From there, you can much easier derive her line of thought.
>Transwomen are transwomen
once, in an effort to sound reasonable. The rest of the time she just calls them men...
Every group eventually finds itself under attack at some point. How they respond when _other_ groups are under attack is what tells the most about any group IMHO.
I say this as someone with no strong opinion in any direction on the issues raised in the article.
>I've got a Q for my male twitter friends who have pledged not to appear on all male panels - if u were invited on a panel w Pip Bunce - one of FT's top 100 female champions of women in biz & another guy would u say yes or call the organisers & say sorry i don't do #manels?
>This question sparked several threads of discussion and I wrote about 150 tweets over the course of a week [...] The tone of these discussions was one of ordinary discussion and disagreement, but not long after I received an email from HR
