Disregarding the rest, transwomen are not all born with typical XY chromosomes and the XX/XY karyotypes for sex designation are a lot more complicated than xx=lady and xy=guy.
Aside from extra or damaged chromosomes, chimerism, and other genetic differences, there are mitigating factors in genetic expression that can affect development in a number of ways. As one example, there are women with XY chromosomes who don't even know it, and recent studies have found a lot more of them than previously thought to exist.
So, even before taking into account gender dysphoria, sex isn't that cut and dry in the first place.
I'm no expert on the subject and I wasn't able to find a clear account. Keep in mind a lot of effort went into spinning the story so the real facts might be long gone.
My somewhat unfounded opinion is that living as part of a marginalized group, subject to different rules (legal or social,) makes one question rhe validity of all rules. Marginalized and intersectional people wouldn't be as interested in following convention in the first place.
Add to that, a push to get more women into trades where the gender divide is greater, with assistance that recognizes the increased difficulty for women to get into those fields.
This is a weird headline. Like eating out is a normal thing to do, we see it come up on the calendar and are just like "Nah, let's skip paying more for food today."
Yes, you just described how a contract works.
It's pretty clear you didn't read the whole point because that's the same thing I said but in worse terms.
I'm done with this thread, but you have a good one.
I generally support most of the things posted here. This one gave me an ick feeling, though.
Yes, there's loads and loads of evidence for the unbalanced emotional labor placed on women and I've seen it and I've been there and I hate it.
While the headline tempers the screenshot, it still says "men, unironically," and that's the part I feel is more divisive. Even though part of me agrees, a part that wants to scream "Fuck yes, sister!" I gotta be like nah, not this one.
She might have been contracted rather than an employee, and may have already completed her contract. But either way it's fuzzy. She could have grounds to dispute it, because:
She wasn't acting as a representative of the company or it's views.
She was using her independent social media account.
Her sometimes incendiary, political social media presence was a known entity and apparently discussed, and might even be considered part of her brand, unless her contract outlined what she could and couldn't say for x amount of time after completing her contract.
The book was already printed and shipped, their recall could be considered retaliation for her political views, since they don't apply the same rules across the board, and the recall would hurt her worse than them.
Is your trolling always this obvious?