> the author seems to be forgetting (intentionally ignoring for the sake of their argument)
I agreed with many of the arguments in the article when I red it, but checking out the other submissions on that blog, I think there are a lot of suspicious omissions like this.
E.g. There is another post [1] about a transwoman and a transman both competing in the women's swimming team. Sounds weird and at first glance seems to confirm all the usual "trans agenda" accusations. Except, the linked original article [2] clears it up:
> Henig is eligible to compete on the women’s team as a trans man because he’s chosen not to receive gender-affirming hormones, also known as hormone replacement therapy, such as testosterone.
Any mention of that in the blog? Nope - on the contrary, she doubles down on the confusion and emphasizes it to push the "trans agenda" narrative:
> Can you ask any questions about this and whether it makes sense for women’s sports to become a free-for-all for all that leads to a man winning? Do you want to keep your job? Because by the definitions of the movement, Iszac is a male who cannot compete on a women’s team, right? This whole thing is becoming increasingly absurd.
So in closing, I think the source is heavily biased to push certain outrage-generating narratives and cannot really be taken serious - even though I absolutely empathize with a lot of her observations in the OP article.
[1] https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/tgif-the-pope-is-with-us
[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/trans-athlete-debat...