It's a fine social or political stance, but it's purely those.
Clicking the first link, woman :
A trans woman (short for transgender woman) is a woman ->
Woman : A woman is an adult female human. ->
Female : An organism's sex is female (symbol: ) if it produces the ovum (egg cell).
As far as I know that's not the case.
Maybe, but about 40% of people who lean Democrat believe that "woman" refers only to biological sex. [1] This is not a MAGA thing. (I myself lean strongly Democratic.)
Among all Americans, 60% (and growing) believe that a transwoman is not a woman.
So, my core point stands: the transwoman Wikipedia article parrots an ideological minority.
This ideological group happens to be extremely online and fervent, as my downvote status reflects. But they are nevertheless a shrinking minority, per Pew Research, and their views have no place being espoused in a Wikipedia article. It's a shameful contravention of Wikipedia neutrality. [2]
If toxicity makes certain "volunteers" stop squatting on Wikipedia pages, then weaponized toxicity against them might actually be the prosocial choice, as Wikipedia is an important public resource. Drive them out. That's my takeaway from the parent article.
What is it about this topic that drives people absolutely crazy? Far less than 1% of people ID as trans yet it's just the most important cultural shibboleth and just mentioned / argued about constantly... why do you care at all how Wikipedia phrases the opening paragraph on their page about Trans women?
I think the major things that drive anti-trans people crazy are laws, regulations, and policies compelling speech [1], and creating mandatory mixed-sex spaces [2] and competitions (we're still in an era where women have to fight for rights such as sports equality [3] and lactation rooms).
While Pew doesn't get into the question you're asking, it's research results show how widely people think on the issue [4]. A breadth of ideology facilitates polarization and craziness.
For pro-trans people you probably have a silent majority, but the crazy minority [5] will range the gamut in motivation.
It's because this is a fundamental redefinition of the difference between women and men, one which seriously disadvantages women. When this ideological stance of "trans women are women" is enacted into law and imposed as policy, it has the effect of eradicating female-only spaces, forcing women to accept any man who purports to be a woman in these spaces. This is good enough reason to oppose it.
There were women's spaces (bathrooms / changing rooms) for example that kept women safe from predatory men.
Who should be allowed in those? Is it defined by the clothes?
If a predatory man / bad actor decides to put on those clothes to abuse the system, then what? What if the predatory man / bad actor decides to hang just below the bar of illegality, and creep on women long term?
Is this something that you spent a lot of time worrying about prior to this bizarre trans panic? All of the existing laws that prevent predatory men from creeping on women in those spaces also apply to trans people..
Totally disagree, it’s now entirely legal in many places for a predatory man to say he identifies as a woman, and change in spaces previously created to keep women safe.
And yes, thanks, I do like thinking about issues of justice, morality, and politics.
Excellent example. Is it possible for a convicted criminal to game compassion to be moved from a men’s to women’s prison. Would anyone lie in that situation? There is probably a whole lot more people to take advantage of if your a convicted predator in a woman’s prison.
