Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it a legitimate question? We have special protection for under represented groups. So when the dominant group starts taking the identity of underrepresented groups and coopting their protections, they are no longer protected. The two things are at odds with each other.
I'll engage. I think your comments are clearly bigoted, and I'll tell you why. What you do with that is up to you. > Hmm, somehow I knew Justine is a 'transwoman' by this feat. Lucky guess I suppose... You use scare quotes around "transwoman". Why is that? Is that a concept you believe is not real somehow? You are guessing that something technically impressive was achieved by a trans woman. Why is that? Are women not…
It's empirically the case that men are much more technically inclined than women these days. I think that is due to a combination of reasons, not some sort of inherent inferiority of females. Not do I think people who undergo modification of their genitalia should be singled out for condemnation. You are reading into what I wrote. I am pointing a basic dilemma resulting from the fact that men who undergo genetalia surgery do not suddenly lose the attributes that these days allow males to excel over females in certain domains. In which case there is still a power imbalance, and those on whom the benefit lies now can circumvent the protections erected for those needing special attention. Seems like a clear problem to me. The irony is the noble inclinations that motivate special attention for females may make people blind to when the allowances are being exploited by males.