Even if you fucking are trans, if you're a man who thinks he's a woman, wouldn't you just play a woman? Isn't that what you want to be? Otherwise, aren't they kind of admitting that such a person doesn't want to be a woman, he wants to be a man who wants to be a woman, it's just bizarre.
I guess the actual answer is that it isn't even about letting the entire four trans people on the planet who play this game have a character that's just for them, it's actually just 100% about virtue signalling.
Remember that time that guy might have given you a dirty look yesterday, which you won't even remember a couple of days from now? Well, if you were a woman feminist, you would assume that guy was sexist and had some problem with you because you were a woman. The same for that one time that guy stocking the shelves ignored you in favor of someone else. Or that time your coworker got a raise and you didn't. Every single time life doesn't go perfectly, or some random person is mean to you, that a white male just ignores, a sufficiently woke minority or woman instead attributes to bigotry.
If you keep it in the back of your mind while you're going through your normal life, it's pretty easy to start picking out social interactions which a delusional paranoid woman would assume is misogyny if it happened to them. And then of course they fixate on it, and those ten times in their life someone was mean to them suddenly become the constant background of misogyny they think they're forced to live with.
The last time I heard about them was when they increased the points you get for asking questions, because they found that women had fewer points than men on average, and wanted to give women more points, and found that women were more likely to ask questions than answer them. It was kind of a perfect story, actually: Women sucking at tech despite complete gender anonymity, and the typical silicon valley response of rigging the game so that women do better for no reason other than that they're women and they're the preferred gender.
There's also something called "reversion to mean"- if you act on outliers, you're basically guaranteed that the numbers will make it look like your actions are effective, because the outliers pretty much always revert to the average just because that's what outliers do.
The usual example is putting a new stoplight on the intersection in the city with the most accidents in the last year. Then next year, the number of accidents goes down. Must be that stoplight, right? Except it was probably going to go down anyway, because the intersection with the most accidents in the city last year was likely a statistical fluke to begin with, and it's average number of accidents is lower.
And we see it both ways with the wuhan virus. A state has a record high number of cases last month? Better make up a bunch of bullshit restrictions, things are getting dangerous! Then next month, when it's lower, it must be because those restrictions worked, not that it was just a coincidence that it was that high to begin with, and it would have come down anyway. And the other way, where there's a sudden dip- well, I GUESS we can remove a few restrictions... oh no, next month the numbers went up, better put all the lockdowns back in place!
Record lows are usually followed by an increase, record highs are usually followed by a decrease, and both those factors encourage idiots to have more lockdowns and convince themselves that they work.
And just to be clear, those people are all ages. A 20 year-old dying to a drug overdose is hugely more years of life lost and has many more times of an impact on life expectancy statistics than an 85 year old dying to the wuhan virus in a nursing home.
And that's just counting the deaths that have already happened. Deaths due to the effects of the lockdown will continue for decades, because it's not like all those jobs lost and all those businesses destroyed will just reappear where everything left off tomorrow.
The lockdown was hugely more dangerous than the disease.
It doesn't matter. Women being required to register for the draft doesn't mean they will ever be forced to serve. A man who gets a woman pregnant still has to go fight. A woman who gets pregnant will not. Get pregnant, get an abortion, repeat as necessary.
And that's leaving aside how many would just fail the physical requirements, deliberately or not. And THAT is leaving aside that those women would likely find themselves in non-combat roles thanks to their own efforts or those of white knights on their behalf, and THAT is leaving aside the reality that there will very likely never be another draft.
Even if women are required to register for the draft, and there is a draft, I'd be shocked if more than 10% of those forced to actually fight were women.
So there is practically zero actual downside, and the upside is that they can pretend women are treated as disposably as men are and they give a fuck about equality, versus being a female supremacy movement.
And they obviously controlled for whether blacks are more relatively likely to commit crimes than whites, right? Or whether people were more likely to have lost their jobs or their place in college due to affirmative action policies favoring blacks, versus policies favoring whites? Or whether there had been recent social movements focused on black lives mattering more than whites, versus movements saying the opposite?
And they also checked and wrote as many disparaging articles about the same data concerning negative impressions of whites held by blacks, right?
And this certainly isn't an entire project created by a bunch of agenda-driven assholes who had already reached a conclusion before they even did the research, as made obvious by calling it "Project Implicit", right?
Dropping the sarcasm, this is a bunch of black supremacist assholes working back from their already-set conclusion to justify their hatred of whites. They don't care about whether there could be fair reasons for why people might feel less positive about blacks, because in their world, black people are perfect. They don't care that their own implicit dislike for whites is, ironically, crystal clear, because they think having a negative bias towards whites is justified and virtuous, even while they've dedicated their lives to the idea that having a negative bias towards blacks is unjustifiable and tremendously shameful.
And finally, this isn't even measuring actual actions. This isn't saying, "These people wouldn't hire a black person even if he were more qualified for the job". It's just "implicit bias", and I guarantee this is measured in the same sociology bullshit ways they always measure these things when they want the data to be shocking. Like when they wanted to be able to say video games made people violent, and they did it by having two groups fill in word problems, like EXPLO_E, and if you fill it in with a D you're violent, and if you fill it in with an R you're not. Because sociology has always been about getting the results you want to justify what you already believe.
Even if you don't think the life being lost in an abortion counts, fucking EVERYTHING affects the health of other people. Allowing people to drive at 65 mph kills people, should we lower it to 55? 45? 25? Allowing people to buy alcohol leads to deaths, should be ban alcohol (feminism has already said "yes" to that once, actually)? Running a dishwasher consumes electricity, which is generated by power plants that produce pollution, which is apparently going to kill us all, so should we ban dishwashers?
A lot of women are going to be removed from manager position by other women based on the vitriol they can't help themselves to spew.
But feminism doesn't say "You must hire this specific woman to a manager position", it says "You must have at least half of all managers be women, (even if far less than half of the qualified applicants are women)". So maybe there would be infighting, but the women who get booted out would just be replaced by other women, and the women forced out would just find employment elsewhere, for the same reason.
Firing 15 women and 5 men and hiring back 15 men and 5 women from high positions in your company would get you articles written about how sexist you are, regardless of why those women were fired or how much you have to scrape the bottom of the bucket to find other women to replace them. So yes, maybe some specific women will lose out and screw up so badly they won't get rehired by some other company desperate to find even vaguely qualified women to hire, but women as a whole just can't lose.
That was one of the things I liked about Blade Runner- it depicted a future that was chaotic, filthy and disgusting, kind of like cities of today are chaotic, filthy and disgusting, in stark contrast to the insanely clean and perfect Star Trek vision of the future.
You presume that most people will find out. As the article says:
Curiously, information regarding Barrett’s being born a biological male is not mentioned anywhere in her own biography or in reports on her athletics.
So yeah, if you actually watch the event and see this guy's face, it's not hard to figure out, but I predict little to no coverage on this sort of thing. Hell, even THIS article calls him "she" throughout. They've redefined terms to the point that it's basically career suicide to even report on this sort of thing honestly, that is to say, using actually correct pronouns, and it's not much better covering the wider implications that men and women are physically different. So people will experience first-hand an example or two, just like has been happening for years at lower levels of sports, but there will be no mainstream coverage of how widespread it is.
It's kind of like affirmative action: It's widespread, it affects almost everyone at some point in their lives, but most people only notice it around them personally a few times, and journalists, even right-wing ones, generally refuse to report on it because of the political blowback from doing so, so most people just forget about it.
Expecting people to act like alimony doesn't exist when it does is not a reasonable position to take. It's also a pretty big goalpost shift to go from "Young women aren't interested in men's money" to "Okay, well, they are, but that's the way it should be".
Consider that women are more likely than men to get a college degree, yet are much more likely to get a degree in a field effectively useless to any kind of a career, and are significantly less likely to stay in the workforce for any length of time. Men go to college to get a degree they will use to make money. Women go to college to meet those men.
If you have to take a quiz to find out if you're gay, you're probably gay, but you're DEFINITELY retarded.