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…

  • nikki@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 months ago

    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

    • Of the Air (cele/celes)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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.

      • nikki@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        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^^

      • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        There’s just no way it isn’t transphobic, even if unintentional.

        how would you have worded things differently to avoid this?

        • Of the Air (cele/celes)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          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.

          • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.

              • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                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.

    • Taleya@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Eh, at the start just put a note “for reasons of brevity we are referring solely to cisgender people”