mystique

"'[Parliament is] not the right place to [protest for your rights that Parliament is actively voting to remove]."

There is a conflict here between the interests of SOME cis women and trans women. You only need look to women's rugby or roller derby, 2 sports both very decidedly on one far end of the sports physicality spectrum, to see how little conflict is actually necessary.

So true. Trans athletes are allowed to succeed, so it should not change anything even if they are, but broadly speaking, this is not what's happening. The state of Georgia just banned trans women from women's sports through high school, there are currently 0 known athletes who precipitated this ban. The Scottish FA just banned trans women from women's leagues, this affects 1 woman playing recreationally. The women's pro rugby union in the United States, WER, has (I'm pretty sure) only 1 trans woman athlete, her team is currently in last place and has yet to win a game.

Trans women are women, trans men are men. They come in all shapes and sizes and varieties and they deserve inclusion no matter their unique form.

Well, the answer is no, transgender athletes are not dominating competitions. Even if they were, trans athletes are allowed to succeed, but there's no evidence to indicate that this is happening regardless.

I didn't downvote your comment, but I don't blame people for reading it as coming from a disingenuous place. Big "I'm just asking questions" vibes.

Are those fewer than 10 trans athletes competing in the NCAA performing in the top 1% or better? Should all trans athletes suffer because Riley Gaines tied for 5th place with a trans woman once?

There's actually a documentary coming out soon that analyzes Pat through a 2025 lens. I'm excited to see it.

And being homophobic is even more acceptable by a large part of the society.

And we'll still be here when you're ready to come out. The world can be scary, but you've got friends and a whole ancestry of powerful women and men to build on.

The personal life section of his Wikipedia page lists more than a few examples of conservative Christian themed bigotry.

Is 185 not already high enough? It seems odd to characterize "anti trans (healthcare) bills stayed essentially stagnant at ~185" as anything other than "that's a shit ton of discriminatory legislature aimed squarely at trans people's access to healthcare." Also, unless I'm reading that website very wrong, that's only healthcare bills. The total targeting trans people is in the 600s for 2023 and 2024, with a 9% increase from 2023 to 2024.

Trump made headlines just yesterday for fresh comments promising anti trans executive actions on day one of his presidency. I truly can't figure out the logic behind this post. Anti trans legislation isn't going anywhere, it's increasing actually, and no one should think that Republicans are focusing any less on trans people today than they were a week or a month or a year ago.

I'm all for seeking sources of joy and optimism, but ignorance to reality isn't a viable path forward.

Seriously, we got one line of support from Walz and Harris' offer to follow the law, which is a far cry from supporting trans rights when you consider the laws being passed in many states.

Democrats who were pressed on trans rights this election cycle consistently backed down and conceded and moved towards discriminatory Republican positions.

I wish Harris had won, I would feel much more comfortable with the future prospects of my rights the next 4 years. But anyone who views the Democratic party as truly supportive of trans rights, certainly in any kind of national sense, is sorely mistaken.