Comment by yters
5 years ago
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 capable of technical feats?
> Lucky guess I suppose...
This implies that women being technically inferior is something obvious, something we all know but can't say.
> If all the high achieving women in tech end up being [yet-again-scare-quotes (and for some reason one word)] "transwomen", ...
This isn't a playful hypothetical question. You are reinforcing your claim that women in tech are not high achieving.
> I think trans/self identifying people should be in a separate category so they don't exploit allowances made for under represented minorities.
> So when the dominant group starts taking the identity of underrepresented groups and coopting their protections
From these two statements it is clear you think that trans women are the dominant group (men?) that are exploiting special allowances meant for women. Because in your eyes trans women do not count as women. And they don't deserve protection.
You are getting downvoted because the community recognizes the bigotry against cis and trans women that is the backbone of your two comments.
"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#cflag
If you don't have karma to flag (it takes 31 or more), you can always email us at hn@ycombinator.com.
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.