• maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Genuinely curious … what exactly is the problematic stance here?

    Is it that they think the boxer was a biological male and therefore trans female? Or is it referring to then as a biological male (which seems justifiably politically incorrect to me but not heinous in trying to point out that the Olympic/bougousie can’t be that transphobic, could honestly be a language problem).

    Or is it the statement that the bourgeoisie aren’t trans phobic?

    • Sekoia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      “The transgender topic” is already weird as a statement (kinda like “the gay agenda”, it comes off as only considering it as a political statement?), and “clearly promoted by the bourgeoisie” implies it’s bad.

      “As far as […] lgbt flags on government buildings”: it’s… not far at all? Again, weird statement.

      “Biological male” is both wrong for the boxer (she’s cis) and generally used for transphobia (trans women on HRT aren’t biological males by any reasonable definition). It’s also generally conspiratorial.

      Overall it’s not explicitly transphobic or bad to me, but it shows at minimum a very misinformed perspective.