Women are “the weaker sex”. If you’re living in a male-dominated world that just coincidentally happens to define “strength” by things that men happen to be good at.
But it turns out there’s quite a few important ways in which women are the physically stronger sex…
Hmm, transphobic as it assumes women=people with certain biological traits and features, thus equating sex and gender, reinforcing the binaries, but interesting none-the-less.
Edit: clarified what we mean
while i agree that women doesnt always equate to cis women obviously, the article would be really messy if it constantly had to specify what people exactly it was talking about. it was pretty clear that it was about the subjects born sex rather than women in general
we can save using the word transphobic for things that it really matters imo, this isnt a problem unless made to be a problem
It was both a warning for those who were clicking on it, and the clicking a link about women, to us at least assumes it includes all women, not just some. Either the poster or the article should put a note up top explaining who it is about as we were clicking on it hoping to be including and pretty dissapointed when we were not, and yes it is transphobic, even if not against trans women as it assumes all people with certain biological features or traits are women too.
There’s just no way it isn’t transphobic, even if unintentional.
fair point, ig specifically in this community this doesnt make much sense to post. the article doesnt really cover trans women at all, but doesnt much of it apply anyway? if you consider trans women on hrt i imagine it does, but im not super knowledgeable on the athletic affects it has
i dont mean to argue, just speaking my mind btw^^
how would you have worded things differently to avoid this?
The Whole Article (which is what we meant)?
We would have written it to be less binary and not used terms like women or female and just explained traits etc that gave advantages, explaining it with the understanding of modern science but in an approachable way.
that’s not much of an explanation. I don’t feel like you’re obligated to, but also, if you assert something as true, you probably should be able to explain it.
Look, if you want us to rewrite the whole article we will. But you’ll have to wait.
I would be interested to see how that works.
I love my transfolk friends and relatives. This is a transinclusive place. not trying to undermine that in any way. but I do want to understand things better if I can.
thank you.
Eh, at the start just put a note “for reasons of brevity we are referring solely to cisgender people”
I don’t think there is a good way to discuss the differences between women and men in a short article without generalizing. Most people are cis, and we are exceptions. I don’t personally have an issue with the way this article makes its points.
I can accept that we are exceptional.
The article is bad science.
that is of more concern yes
Right and it is in part bad science because it is transphobic.
it doesn’t mention trans people at all. I think you’re reaching a bit.
No, that’s our point. Article is about women and doesn’t mention us, and assumes everyone with certain biological features/traits is a woman.
Unless a researcher is specifically studying trans women, they won’t have enough data to draw meaningful conclusions about trans women.
The article mentions research papers. The author is writing based on science, not just vibes. Every study will include sampling. They can’t look at every woman, so they have to pick a subset to represent the whole. A sample needs to be large enough to make statistically significant conclusions. The one or two trans women who might be included in the sample will not be enough to draw conclusions about trans women as a group. Unless a study is about trans women specifically, it can’t draw a conclusion about us.
Also keep in mind this is a one or so page summary of an entire book. The author may discuss trans women, I don’t know I haven’t read it. But those details would be unlikely to make it into a summary as condensed as the one we read.
I don’t think its reasonable to call this bad science, and the author transphobic from the information in front of us.
We do not believe we ever called the author transphobic, just the article.
Exactly this. I’m trans and I don’t think this article is transphobic. Cis women are going to talk about cis bodies in womens’ spaces, and just as the topic of trans bodies will likewise come up in the same spaces, that should be encouraged.
This type of thing can certainly be dysphoria-inducing for some trans women, and I think that’s something we just need to self-regulate so everyone feels included and the original topic doesn’t get hijacked. There certainly are times and places to vent about biology articles that center cis women, and I think the best place for that are in specifically trans spaces.
Yes but also certain traits of bio sex are achievable for trans people, so it’s also hard to say which parts of the article are strictly applicable to bio women. So while I don’t think the author really had trans people in mind, some aspects there are probably not strictly for bio women.