Women's Sports and Lia Thomas thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[…]So the short answer is that in a situation with zero sum results (and sports is unusual that way), I honestly don’t know what the best short term answer is. But the fact that we can’t even talk about the zero sum nature of sports without someone screaming “transphobic” is really unfortunate and frankly I think I t basically just hands the GOP a powerful election tool. Nuance is not a Republican thing, and so when transactivists refuse to engage in a good faith discussion, they are just essentially agreeing with the GOP that this is not a nuanced issue.

I didn’t see a lot of people in the Lia Thomas thread or in this just throwing out “transphobic.” I think people just opting to use a screen name would go a long way toward making people’s positions clear without having to sign in. - Stephanie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a string of GOP/anti-trans talking points.

We should be having discussions about education/athletics and the gap for women/minorities. But those aren't "transgender" issues.

The current GOP talking point, as demonstrated just today by Senator Rick Scott with his new NRSC platform, is:

"Humans are born male and female, there are two genders, and to deny that is to deny science."

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-1cf5-d281-a7ff-3ffd5f4a0000

The suggestion that transgender women may be taking podium spots from biological women is far too nuanced for today's GOP. Whether you regard such a concern as legitimate or illegitimate, I think simply labeling it as "transphobic" is counter productive.

It has been an GOP campaign tactic for years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/us/politics/kentucky-transgender-school-sports.html

Does the GOP actually GAF about transgender people one way or another? Dunno. But they are fully willing to throw them under the bus to push this as wedge issue. I'd consider that anti-trans.

Does pro-woman=anti-trans then? Are trans rights more important than women’s rights? Just trying to understand.

The people are are genuinely pro-woman and do fight against gender and racial inequality don't see it as either/or.
https://nwlc.org/issue/education-title-ix/

Which is a problem.

Why? They can support women, women of color, and transgender women.

I disagree. I have different needs than a transwoman. My needs are sometimes in conflicts with hers. There needs to be a different organization supporting her needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[…]So the short answer is that in a situation with zero sum results (and sports is unusual that way), I honestly don’t know what the best short term answer is. But the fact that we can’t even talk about the zero sum nature of sports without someone screaming “transphobic” is really unfortunate and frankly I think I t basically just hands the GOP a powerful election tool. Nuance is not a Republican thing, and so when transactivists refuse to engage in a good faith discussion, they are just essentially agreeing with the GOP that this is not a nuanced issue.

I didn’t see a lot of people in the Lia Thomas thread or in this just throwing out “transphobic.” I think people just opting to use a screen name would go a long way toward making people’s positions clear without having to sign in. - Stephanie.

I’m the PP and I was specifically thinking about the transactivist who called my earlier post “transphobic,” which I genuinely do not understand. That PP seemed to be taking the position that any conversation that references the zero sum nature of athletics in the context of discussing transwomen is “transphobic.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a string of GOP/anti-trans talking points.

We should be having discussions about education/athletics and the gap for women/minorities. But those aren't "transgender" issues.

The current GOP talking point, as demonstrated just today by Senator Rick Scott with his new NRSC platform, is:

"Humans are born male and female, there are two genders, and to deny that is to deny science."

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-1cf5-d281-a7ff-3ffd5f4a0000

The suggestion that transgender women may be taking podium spots from biological women is far too nuanced for today's GOP. Whether you regard such a concern as legitimate or illegitimate, I think simply labeling it as "transphobic" is counter productive.

It has been an GOP campaign tactic for years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/us/politics/kentucky-transgender-school-sports.html

Does the GOP actually GAF about transgender people one way or another? Dunno. But they are fully willing to throw them under the bus to push this as wedge issue. I'd consider that anti-trans.

Does pro-woman=anti-trans then? Are trans rights more important than women’s rights? Just trying to understand.

The people are are genuinely pro-woman and do fight against gender and racial inequality don't see it as either/or.
https://nwlc.org/issue/education-title-ix/

Which is a problem.

Why? They can support women, women of color, and transgender women.

I disagree. I have different needs than a transwoman. My needs are sometimes in conflicts with hers. There needs to be a different organization supporting her needs.

You both have more in common than not. Organizations can and do support support ALL women - education, athletics, sexual harassment, pay, healthcare, childcare.

Scroll down and see this organization in action - supporting cis-women, women of color, transgender women, etc.
https://nwlc.org/issue/education-title-ix/

Pitting women against women is harmful. Women are stronger together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Transgender issues can’t be discussed on DCUM. Jeff has made that quite clear over the years. If you’re interested in the issue and women’s responses to it, check out Ovarit. This is simply not the place to have that conversation.

There are multiple transgender discussions going on right now. You are confusing discussion of transgender issues with being transphobic. The former is allowed, the latter is not.

Jeff, would you be willing to provide your/this site’s definition of transphobia?

I am not smart enough to give a definition that will stand up in a court of law, but I think that a refusal to recognize gender identity is transphobia. In other words, purposely calling a trans woman a "man" is transphobia. Suggesting that transgender individuals have mental illnesses is transphobia. To a certain extent, I will follow the example set by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart with regard to pornography, "I know it when I see it".

You are obviously entitled to your opinion, and can moderate the site as you wish, but I don’t think this is transphobia. It’s just an opinion that some of us hold. Doesn’t prevent me from treating transgender people (and I have several as patients) with dignity and respect.

to their face

And?

How do you think they'd feel if they found out you were disrespectful behind their back? Or found out you thought they were mentally ill?

They’re not my best friends. They’re not going to find out. Literally the only thing that matters is how I treat them face to face. My personal thoughts their situation are completely irrelevant. They want respect in daily life, they’ve got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[…]So the short answer is that in a situation with zero sum results (and sports is unusual that way), I honestly don’t know what the best short term answer is. But the fact that we can’t even talk about the zero sum nature of sports without someone screaming “transphobic” is really unfortunate and frankly I think I t basically just hands the GOP a powerful election tool. Nuance is not a Republican thing, and so when transactivists refuse to engage in a good faith discussion, they are just essentially agreeing with the GOP that this is not a nuanced issue.

I didn’t see a lot of people in the Lia Thomas thread or in this just throwing out “transphobic.” I think people just opting to use a screen name would go a long way toward making people’s positions clear without having to sign in. - Stephanie.

I’m the PP and I was specifically thinking about the transactivist who called my earlier post “transphobic,” which I genuinely do not understand. That PP seemed to be taking the position that any conversation that references the zero sum nature of athletics in the context of discussing transwomen is “transphobic.”

I am the PP who made that comment. I'm not a "transactivist". And I didn't call the post transphobic.

But the us vs. them sentiment certainly does read as anti-trans to me. There are many inequalities in college athletics. Laser-focusing in on this extremely rare scenario instead of any of the other issues that do affect thousands of girls in sports today seems bigoted. Plus, it's a GOP wedge issue and makes me question motives.

A conversation discussing the differences in IOC vs. NCAA vs. USA Swimming transgender guidelines is one thing. Blanketly saying that no transgender women should ever compete against cis-women sounds bigoted to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[…]So the short answer is that in a situation with zero sum results (and sports is unusual that way), I honestly don’t know what the best short term answer is. But the fact that we can’t even talk about the zero sum nature of sports without someone screaming “transphobic” is really unfortunate and frankly I think I t basically just hands the GOP a powerful election tool. Nuance is not a Republican thing, and so when transactivists refuse to engage in a good faith discussion, they are just essentially agreeing with the GOP that this is not a nuanced issue.

I didn’t see a lot of people in the Lia Thomas thread or in this just throwing out “transphobic.” I think people just opting to use a screen name would go a long way toward making people’s positions clear without having to sign in. - Stephanie.

I’m the PP and I was specifically thinking about the transactivist who called my earlier post “transphobic,” which I genuinely do not understand. That PP seemed to be taking the position that any conversation that references the zero sum nature of athletics in the context of discussing transwomen is “transphobic.”

I am the PP who made that comment. I'm not a "transactivist". And I didn't call the post transphobic.

But the us vs. them sentiment certainly does read as anti-trans to me. There are many inequalities in college athletics. Laser-focusing in on this extremely rare scenario instead of any of the other issues that do affect thousands of girls in sports today seems bigoted. Plus, it's a GOP wedge issue and makes me question motives.

A conversation discussing the differences in IOC vs. NCAA vs. USA Swimming transgender guidelines is one thing. Blanketly saying that no transgender women should ever compete against cis-women sounds bigoted to me.

Well, I certainly didn’t say the bolded, so there was no need for you to immediately answer with an eye roll emoji and call me transphobic (which you clearly did).

It is impossible to have conversations that are thoughtful if that’s the tenor taken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[…]So the short answer is that in a situation with zero sum results (and sports is unusual that way), I honestly don’t know what the best short term answer is. But the fact that we can’t even talk about the zero sum nature of sports without someone screaming “transphobic” is really unfortunate and frankly I think I t basically just hands the GOP a powerful election tool. Nuance is not a Republican thing, and so when transactivists refuse to engage in a good faith discussion, they are just essentially agreeing with the GOP that this is not a nuanced issue.

I didn’t see a lot of people in the Lia Thomas thread or in this just throwing out “transphobic.” I think people just opting to use a screen name would go a long way toward making people’s positions clear without having to sign in. - Stephanie.

I’m the PP and I was specifically thinking about the transactivist who called my earlier post “transphobic,” which I genuinely do not understand. That PP seemed to be taking the position that any conversation that references the zero sum nature of athletics in the context of discussing transwomen is “transphobic.”

I am the PP who made that comment. I'm not a "transactivist". And I didn't call the post transphobic.

But the us vs. them sentiment certainly does read as anti-trans to me. There are many inequalities in college athletics. Laser-focusing in on this extremely rare scenario instead of any of the other issues that do affect thousands of girls in sports today seems bigoted. Plus, it's a GOP wedge issue and makes me question motives.

A conversation discussing the differences in IOC vs. NCAA vs. USA Swimming transgender guidelines is one thing. Blanketly saying that no transgender women should ever compete against cis-women sounds bigoted to me.

Dp- i reported your original comment. I stand by that. It’s not okay to shut down civilized and thoughtful conversations. That’s no better than trolling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Transgender issues can’t be discussed on DCUM. Jeff has made that quite clear over the years. If you’re interested in the issue and women’s responses to it, check out Ovarit. This is simply not the place to have that conversation.

There are multiple transgender discussions going on right now. You are confusing discussion of transgender issues with being transphobic. The former is allowed, the latter is not.

Jeff, would you be willing to provide your/this site’s definition of transphobia?

I am not smart enough to give a definition that will stand up in a court of law, but I think that a refusal to recognize gender identity is transphobia. In other words, purposely calling a trans woman a "man" is transphobia. Suggesting that transgender individuals have mental illnesses is transphobia. To a certain extent, I will follow the example set by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart with regard to pornography, "I know it when I see it".

You are obviously entitled to your opinion, and can moderate the site as you wish, but I don’t think this is transphobia. It’s just an opinion that some of us hold. Doesn’t prevent me from treating transgender people (and I have several as patients) with dignity and respect.

to their face

And?

How do you think they'd feel if they found out you were disrespectful behind their back? Or found out you thought they were mentally ill?

They’re not my best friends. They’re not going to find out. Literally the only thing that matters is how I treat them face to face. My personal thoughts their situation are completely irrelevant. They want respect in daily life, they’ve got it.

Pretty sure most people want to be sincerely respected, not just superficially because of professional obligations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[…]So the short answer is that in a situation with zero sum results (and sports is unusual that way), I honestly don’t know what the best short term answer is. But the fact that we can’t even talk about the zero sum nature of sports without someone screaming “transphobic” is really unfortunate and frankly I think I t basically just hands the GOP a powerful election tool. Nuance is not a Republican thing, and so when transactivists refuse to engage in a good faith discussion, they are just essentially agreeing with the GOP that this is not a nuanced issue.

I didn’t see a lot of people in the Lia Thomas thread or in this just throwing out “transphobic.” I think people just opting to use a screen name would go a long way toward making people’s positions clear without having to sign in. - Stephanie.

I’m the PP and I was specifically thinking about the transactivist who called my earlier post “transphobic,” which I genuinely do not understand. That PP seemed to be taking the position that any conversation that references the zero sum nature of athletics in the context of discussing transwomen is “transphobic.”

I am the PP who made that comment. I'm not a "transactivist". And I didn't call the post transphobic.

But the us vs. them sentiment certainly does read as anti-trans to me. There are many inequalities in college athletics. Laser-focusing in on this extremely rare scenario instead of any of the other issues that do affect thousands of girls in sports today seems bigoted. Plus, it's a GOP wedge issue and makes me question motives.

A conversation discussing the differences in IOC vs. NCAA vs. USA Swimming transgender guidelines is one thing. Blanketly saying that no transgender women should ever compete against cis-women sounds bigoted to me.

Well, I certainly didn’t say the bolded, so there was no need for you to immediately answer with an eye roll emoji and call me transphobic (which you clearly did).

It is impossible to have conversations that are thoughtful if that’s the tenor taken.

I guess after reading that train-wreck thread full of fake support for transgender people I've come away realizing that there are very few sincere posters. And there wasn't a lot of nuance. Just a whole lot of us vs. them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Transgender issues can’t be discussed on DCUM. Jeff has made that quite clear over the years. If you’re interested in the issue and women’s responses to it, check out Ovarit. This is simply not the place to have that conversation.

There are multiple transgender discussions going on right now. You are confusing discussion of transgender issues with being transphobic. The former is allowed, the latter is not.

Jeff, would you be willing to provide your/this site’s definition of transphobia?

I am not smart enough to give a definition that will stand up in a court of law, but I think that a refusal to recognize gender identity is transphobia. In other words, purposely calling a trans woman a "man" is transphobia. Suggesting that transgender individuals have mental illnesses is transphobia. To a certain extent, I will follow the example set by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart with regard to pornography, "I know it when I see it".

You are obviously entitled to your opinion, and can moderate the site as you wish, but I don’t think this is transphobia. It’s just an opinion that some of us hold. Doesn’t prevent me from treating transgender people (and I have several as patients) with dignity and respect.

to their face

And?

How do you think they'd feel if they found out you were disrespectful behind their back? Or found out you thought they were mentally ill?

They’re not my best friends. They’re not going to find out. Literally the only thing that matters is how I treat them face to face. My personal thoughts their situation are completely irrelevant. They want respect in daily life, they’ve got it.

DP but I agree with this poster. You can't force everyone to see transgender people exactly as they see themselves. They are certainly worthy of respect and kindness but you can't force others to believe that a transwoman is really a woman for example if they fundamentally do not believe it. You can apply the same principal to those with different religious beliefs. A person can be respectful and kind towards another person despite sharing different religious beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a string of GOP/anti-trans talking points.

We should be having discussions about education/athletics and the gap for women/minorities. But those aren't "transgender" issues.

The current GOP talking point, as demonstrated just today by Senator Rick Scott with his new NRSC platform, is:

"Humans are born male and female, there are two genders, and to deny that is to deny science."

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-1cf5-d281-a7ff-3ffd5f4a0000

The suggestion that transgender women may be taking podium spots from biological women is far too nuanced for today's GOP. Whether you regard such a concern as legitimate or illegitimate, I think simply labeling it as "transphobic" is counter productive.

It has been an GOP campaign tactic for years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/us/politics/kentucky-transgender-school-sports.html

Does the GOP actually GAF about transgender people one way or another? Dunno. But they are fully willing to throw them under the bus to push this as wedge issue. I'd consider that anti-trans.

Does pro-woman=anti-trans then? Are trans rights more important than women’s rights? Just trying to understand.

The people are are genuinely pro-woman and do fight against gender and racial inequality don't see it as either/or.
https://nwlc.org/issue/education-title-ix/

Which is a problem.

Why? They can support women, women of color, and transgender women.

I disagree. I have different needs than a transwoman. My needs are sometimes in conflicts with hers. There needs to be a different organization supporting her needs.

You both have more in common than not. Organizations can and do support support ALL women - education, athletics, sexual harassment, pay, healthcare, childcare.

Scroll down and see this organization in action - supporting cis-women, women of color, transgender women, etc.
https://nwlc.org/issue/education-title-ix/

Pitting women against women is harmful. Women are stronger together.

I’m the PP who was talking about primarily white feminist organizations (like NWLC) and their history with marginalized populations and this is a very good example of the language I was thinking about. For many years, practically more than a century’s worth, language exactly like this was used to overtly remove issues of POC women from the platforms of feminist organizations. Black women in particular were often told that they should essentially be quiet because otherwise Black women were “pitting women against women” and that “women are stronger together.” That language is eerily similar to the language used to tell WOC to stop raising their issues because it weakened the arguments of mainstream feminist organizations.

It makes me extremely uncomfortable to see this exact language used specifically in the context of athletics given the history of athletics being used as a vehicle of educational mobility for disadvantaged women. There is a very ugly history behind these sort of surface-level pleasantries.

I’m not even saying that the sentiment is entirely wrong, but that this glossy type of “win together” language has a brutal and ugly history in mainstream white women’s organizations, and I wish people would be aware of the history of privileges they are invoking when they use it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a string of GOP/anti-trans talking points.

We should be having discussions about education/athletics and the gap for women/minorities. But those aren't "transgender" issues.

The current GOP talking point, as demonstrated just today by Senator Rick Scott with his new NRSC platform, is:

"Humans are born male and female, there are two genders, and to deny that is to deny science."

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-1cf5-d281-a7ff-3ffd5f4a0000

The suggestion that transgender women may be taking podium spots from biological women is far too nuanced for today's GOP. Whether you regard such a concern as legitimate or illegitimate, I think simply labeling it as "transphobic" is counter productive.

It has been an GOP campaign tactic for years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/us/politics/kentucky-transgender-school-sports.html

Does the GOP actually GAF about transgender people one way or another? Dunno. But they are fully willing to throw them under the bus to push this as wedge issue. I'd consider that anti-trans.

Does pro-woman=anti-trans then? Are trans rights more important than women’s rights? Just trying to understand.

The people are are genuinely pro-woman and do fight against gender and racial inequality don't see it as either/or.
https://nwlc.org/issue/education-title-ix/

Which is a problem.

Why? They can support women, women of color, and transgender women.

I disagree. I have different needs than a transwoman. My needs are sometimes in conflicts with hers. There needs to be a different organization supporting her needs.

You both have more in common than not. Organizations can and do support support ALL women - education, athletics, sexual harassment, pay, healthcare, childcare.

Scroll down and see this organization in action - supporting cis-women, women of color, transgender women, etc.
https://nwlc.org/issue/education-title-ix/

Pitting women against women is harmful. Women are stronger together.

Title IX specifically sets aside funding for female athletes. It is zero sum, a scholarship for one woman means another woman loses the same amount. Please tell me how one organization can advocate for both trans women and women who were born female in college athletics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a string of GOP/anti-trans talking points.

We should be having discussions about education/athletics and the gap for women/minorities. But those aren't "transgender" issues.

The current GOP talking point, as demonstrated just today by Senator Rick Scott with his new NRSC platform, is:

"Humans are born male and female, there are two genders, and to deny that is to deny science."

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-1cf5-d281-a7ff-3ffd5f4a0000

The suggestion that transgender women may be taking podium spots from biological women is far too nuanced for today's GOP. Whether you regard such a concern as legitimate or illegitimate, I think simply labeling it as "transphobic" is counter productive.

It has been an GOP campaign tactic for years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/us/politics/kentucky-transgender-school-sports.html

Does the GOP actually GAF about transgender people one way or another? Dunno. But they are fully willing to throw them under the bus to push this as wedge issue. I'd consider that anti-trans.

Does pro-woman=anti-trans then? Are trans rights more important than women’s rights? Just trying to understand.

The people are are genuinely pro-woman and do fight against gender and racial inequality don't see it as either/or.
https://nwlc.org/issue/education-title-ix/

Which is a problem.

Why? They can support women, women of color, and transgender women.

I disagree. I have different needs than a transwoman. My needs are sometimes in conflicts with hers. There needs to be a different organization supporting her needs.

You both have more in common than not. Organizations can and do support support ALL women - education, athletics, sexual harassment, pay, healthcare, childcare.

Scroll down and see this organization in action - supporting cis-women, women of color, transgender women, etc.
https://nwlc.org/issue/education-title-ix/

Pitting women against women is harmful. Women are stronger together.

Title IX specifically sets aside funding for female athletes. It is zero sum, a scholarship for one woman means another woman loses the same amount. Please tell me how one organization can advocate for both trans women and women who were born female in college athletics.

They are advocating for expanded support for all women:
https://nwlc.org/resource/webinar-using-title-ix-to-end-gender-disparities-in-athletics/

They want to address gender & racial inequalities which will increase opportunities for all, including scholarships.
https://nwlc.org/dear-ncaa-its-not-too-late-to-let-trans-intersex-students-play/
https://nwlc.org/stop-using-girl-athletes-to-justify-your-transphobia/

They are doing real work to help women. All women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a string of GOP/anti-trans talking points.

We should be having discussions about education/athletics and the gap for women/minorities. But those aren't "transgender" issues.

The current GOP talking point, as demonstrated just today by Senator Rick Scott with his new NRSC platform, is:

"Humans are born male and female, there are two genders, and to deny that is to deny science."

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-1cf5-d281-a7ff-3ffd5f4a0000

The suggestion that transgender women may be taking podium spots from biological women is far too nuanced for today's GOP. Whether you regard such a concern as legitimate or illegitimate, I think simply labeling it as "transphobic" is counter productive.

It has been an GOP campaign tactic for years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/us/politics/kentucky-transgender-school-sports.html

Does the GOP actually GAF about transgender people one way or another? Dunno. But they are fully willing to throw them under the bus to push this as wedge issue. I'd consider that anti-trans.

Does pro-woman=anti-trans then? Are trans rights more important than women’s rights? Just trying to understand.

The people are are genuinely pro-woman and do fight against gender and racial inequality don't see it as either/or.
https://nwlc.org/issue/education-title-ix/

Which is a problem.

Why? They can support women, women of color, and transgender women.

I disagree. I have different needs than a transwoman. My needs are sometimes in conflicts with hers. There needs to be a different organization supporting her needs.

You both have more in common than not. Organizations can and do support support ALL women - education, athletics, sexual harassment, pay, healthcare, childcare.

Scroll down and see this organization in action - supporting cis-women, women of color, transgender women, etc.
https://nwlc.org/issue/education-title-ix/

Pitting women against women is harmful. Women are stronger together.

I’m the PP who was talking about primarily white feminist organizations (like NWLC) and their history with marginalized populations and this is a very good example of the language I was thinking about. For many years, practically more than a century’s worth, language exactly like this was used to overtly remove issues of POC women from the platforms of feminist organizations. Black women in particular were often told that they should essentially be quiet because otherwise Black women were “pitting women against women” and that “women are stronger together.” That language is eerily similar to the language used to tell WOC to stop raising their issues because it weakened the arguments of mainstream feminist organizations.

It makes me extremely uncomfortable to see this exact language used specifically in the context of athletics given the history of athletics being used as a vehicle of educational mobility for disadvantaged women. There is a very ugly history behind these sort of surface-level pleasantries.

I’m not even saying that the sentiment is entirely wrong, but that this glossy type of “win together” language has a brutal and ugly history in mainstream white women’s organizations, and I wish people would be aware of the history of privileges they are invoking when they use it.

I am not familiar with the leadership of NWLC and how representative it is, but as an organization they certainly do allocate a lot of their resources to advocate for racial equality.