How is that not just a factual statement? Some may not like reality, but it is what it is.
This is already an issue in that the author of the post refuses to call a Trans-woman a Trans-woman... but instead prefers to call them a man. So the Twitter post is already implicitly transphobic.
Note: Transgender people are natural. The village of Salinas in Dominican Republic more or less proves that a genetic basis for transgender exists. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/09/2...
The scientific understanding of gender, transgender, and sex has greatly improved in just the last 30 years. Unfortunately, the old concepts of male and female are now outdated in the face of modern science.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ambiguous-gen...
These are the bodies that the creator have given us. Yes, I'm religious, and I do believe that we must accept the bodies and the facts-of-the-bodies that we were created with. By studying sexuality and gender, new medical understandings have come about. There is more than just Male (XY) and Female (XX), there's a spectrum in between due to medical mysteries (from chromosome mutations, like Klinefelter syndrome XXY chromosomes... to the "guevedoce" (Translation: Penis at 12) born-females who turn into males at the age of 12ish.
There's just a lot of weird medical stuff and mysteries that happen in this world.
Its hard to argue with how God created us. It seems like the best plan moving forward is to accept these ambiguous gendered people and study them... and accept them for how they are.
"Redefining of sex" was stated right before the use of man not gender. As I understood it sex does not equal gender given the new belief. If they are the same to my understanding there has been no link to sex chromosomes mutations and trans. Those mutations are at best 1.2% of the total population and vary in severity. Even that entire 1.2% probably doesn't fully represent the trans community.
I don't think she was making statement at all that transgender doesn't exists in nature. Her tweets read to have more to do with one many women see as a valid concern men transitioning (or just saying they are with no intent to truly do so) to being a women to take advantage of a situation that may cause harm to women identified at birth.
Can you elaborate on how a transwoman can harm ciswomen? Because I'm personally not seeing any way to answer that question specifically without making some kind of trans-phobic assumption.
"Economically and Socially harm" is the one I'm most interested in. I can maybe see an argument for sports, but that's barely an economic or social issue IMO. The tweet says "Economic, Social, and Political" harm, which is quite a powerful statement!
> "Redefining of sex" was stated right before the use of man not gender
Honestly, I haven't kept up with the internet on this whole thing. I'm mostly working off of psychology that I've studied roughly 15 years ago in high school. So forgive me if I'm not fully remembering all medical details of transsexuals.
I too don't really understand the "sex vs gender" words. But I don't really care too much about those details.
> Those mutations are at best 1.2% of the total population and vary in severity. Even that entire 1.2% probably doesn't fully represent the trans community.
USA has 300,000,000 people. Even a 0.1% statistic becomes 300,000 people. If a small class of people are living an uncomfortable life, and all we have to do to make them feel better is call them "she" or "he" (or whatever they prefer... whether or not they have Adam's apples or whatever), I'm more or less willing to give that to them.
Its basically no cost to me, or anybody really. And it improves the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.
Now, it seems to me that you're trying to tell me that treating transpeople with respect has a social cost. What I'm trying to do is get you to tell me what that social cost is exactly, because I'm frankly not seeing it.