Hacker News Reader

Comment by RajT88 | Hacker News Reader

There's a bit of a chicken-and-egg going on there.

If you're a feminist, but trans-exclusionary, you qualify for the "radical" part.

I'd argue that is traditional feminism. The feminists of the 60's and 70's wouldn't be on board for biological men in women's sports or spaces.

Indeed, the TERFiest feminists out there are observed to often be first wave feminists.

I'm not certain the Suffragettes and their peers put their feelings about trans women on record, but with that generation being entirely dead now I'm not sure they're relevant.

I disagree. If you look at someone who could have a female face, female voice, female genitals, hormone levels marked by medical professionals, had massive changes in muscle/fat distribution. This person will be seen to most passersby as a woman, they will face the same systemic disadvantages feminists will have been arguing against for hundreds of years. To argue that oppressive institutions for women should not be removed but rather amended to oppressive for a subset of women is not in any way feminist.

What's a biological man? Not a Y chromosome, since they used to test Olympic athletes but found that the presence of a Y chromosome was not sufficient to identify men and women. (There are multiple genetic conditions that can cause this.) Many athletes had an unpleasant surprise at the hands of the IOC resulting in at least one suicide.

History and relevant link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_verification_in_sports#:....

>What's a biological man? Not a Y chromosome, since they used to test Olympic athletes but found that the presence of a Y chromosome was not sufficient to identify men and women. (There are multiple genetic conditions that can cause this.) Many athletes had an unpleasant surprise at the hands of the IOC resulting in at least one suicide.

that is a non-sequitur. the conclusion doesnt follow from the premises.

What conclusion? I just pointed out one historical attempt to define "biological man", and noted that it ended in failure?

"What's a biological man? Not a Y chromosome."

Right. That's the definition the international Olympic committee tried to enforce. The presence of a Y chromosome meant athletes weren't allowed to compete.

The problem is that many women (who are not trans) have a Y chromosome. They are either XXY (Klinefelter), or XY (Swyer), XY mosaicism, or any of the other intersex conditions.

Are those people not women? They may have fallopian tubes, a vagina, and a uterus, but also a Y chromosome.

Pretty sure the question is rhetorical, friend.

Actually the feminists of the 60's and 70's debated this kind of issue at length and there was a diversity of opinion.

> you qualify for the "radical" part.

why? Do feminists already "exclude" cis-men?

The more extreme ones do, yes.

"Men can't be feminists" is a hotly debated talking point in the feminist community.

This seems self-contradictory. It's not really debated at all except on the extreme fringe. Hard to call that "hotly".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com