this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2025
44 points (100.0% liked)
WomensStuff
646 readers
167 users here now
Women only trans inclusive This is an inclusive community for all things women. Whether you're here for make up tips, feminism or just friendly chit chat, we've got you covered.
Rules…
- Women only… trans women are women, and transphobic or gender critical talk isn’t allowed. Anyone under the trans umbrella (e.g. non-binary, bigender, agender) is free to decide whether a women's community is a good fit for them.
- Don’t be a dick. No personal attacks, no aggression, play nice.
- Don’t hate on groups, hatefilled talk about groups is not allowed. Ever.
- No governmental politics, so no talk of Trump actions etc. We recommend Feminism@beehaw.org for that, but here is an escape from it.
- New accounts or users with few comments may have their posts removed to prevent spam and bad-faith participation.
founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think there is a good way to discuss the differences between women and men in a short article without generalizing. Most people are cis, and we are exceptions. I don't personally have an issue with the way this article makes its points.
I can accept that we are exceptional.
The article is bad science.
that is of more concern yes
Right and it is in part bad science because it is transphobic.
it doesn't mention trans people at all. I think you're reaching a bit.
No, that's our point. Article is about women and doesn't mention us, and assumes everyone with certain biological features/traits is a woman.
Unless a researcher is specifically studying trans women, they won't have enough data to draw meaningful conclusions about trans women.
The article mentions research papers. The author is writing based on science, not just vibes. Every study will include sampling. They can't look at every woman, so they have to pick a subset to represent the whole. A sample needs to be large enough to make statistically significant conclusions. The one or two trans women who might be included in the sample will not be enough to draw conclusions about trans women as a group. Unless a study is about trans women specifically, it can't draw a conclusion about us.
Also keep in mind this is a one or so page summary of an entire book. The author may discuss trans women, I don't know I haven't read it. But those details would be unlikely to make it into a summary as condensed as the one we read.
I don't think its reasonable to call this bad science, and the author transphobic from the information in front of us.
We do not believe we ever called the author transphobic, just the article.
does that minor difference in wording invalidate my points?
Exactly this. I'm trans and I don't think this article is transphobic. Cis women are going to talk about cis bodies in womens' spaces, and just as the topic of trans bodies will likewise come up in the same spaces, that should be encouraged.
This type of thing can certainly be dysphoria-inducing for some trans women, and I think that's something we just need to self-regulate so everyone feels included and the original topic doesn't get hijacked. There certainly are times and places to vent about biology articles that center cis women, and I think the best place for that are in specifically trans spaces.