When the cissexists tell you who they are...

Rebecca told me not to click. She told me.

Forbes magazine picture, showing some antifeminists antifeministing

The other day Rebecca Schoenkopf, the much beloved cyborg Jedi saviour of thousands and/or editrix of Wonkette linked to an article in Forbes. She was clearly a fan:

This anti-trans lady, apparently an ex-Levi’s president who discovered her inner asshole when she got fired for being an antivax kook, took “GIRL DAD” and made it bigotty and shitty. Don’t even click this, honestly, it’s framed so grotesquely by the Forbes senior contributor whose byline reads “I study the world's most powerful consumers -- The American Affluent.”

The ex-Levi’s president, bigot and kook in question is Jennifer Sey. I’m not trying to imply that Levi’s hires a lot of kooky bigots for its C-suite, I’m just implying that you don’t know the name of every bigoted kook who nabbed 15 seconds of fame during the pandemic for yelling “just let the old folks die, I want a haircut” at the ALL CAPS of their lungs (like a good Randian should). And good on you, honestly.

You might wonder, given that I am writing here about that article, if perhaps our beloved international secret agent played by Jennifer Garner in the TV series based on her life and/or commie-girl journalist was wrong in recommending DO NOT CLICK on that stupid, bigotty Forbes article. I would like to tell you that she was wrong and I was right, because it’s always more fun being right, but no. Imma back up that DO NOT CLICK recommendation, because WHOO BOY in that supposedly factual article about starting an entire athletic wear company to own the libs and hate on the trannies they certainly included a lot of hero-of-the-intellectual-dark-web-fighter-for-freedom-i’m-the-real-feminist-and-gosh-isn’t-money-great kinda bullshit.

That said, I want to make two points about this thing.

Okay, first.

Look at that image that I just FAIR USED FOR COMMENTARY AND CRITIQUE up there. You see that XX/XY logo on that t-shirt the article’s antifeminist supposed-feminist is wearing? Well the company name is XX - XY and one presumes that in the bigoted language that doesn’t know the difference between sex and gender that Forbes and Sey are speaking, that this means “Women Minus Men.” I know what you’re thinking. “Wo, there,” you say. Are they calling trans women men? And I wouldn’t put it past them, but this is just about chromosomes, dammit, which isn’t necessarily wrong, depending on what they’re talking about. So for a brief moment they sound a tiny bit less idiotic than most cissexists, but whoopsie-daisy! When they went and put that logo on a t-shirt, they had to put the XX over the XY, for reasons of the graphic designers they hired cannot math. So what it actually means is “Female karyotype divided by male karyotype,” but let’s do them the favour of translating into their chromosomally reductionist lingo, where it means “Women divided by men.”

And, yeah. That’s about right for a bunch of women who are all for creating more and more divisions at the behest of a patriarchy that needs divisions to function. Neither Sey nor Forbes seems to be aware of how on the antifeminist nose the shirt really is, but self-awareness isn’t the strong suit of anti-vaxxers and cissexists.

Speaking of! Let’s do Point, The Second.

This one is going to require a bit of a quote from Forbes, just like the last one required showing you some bigots in some bigotwear. Bear with me, we’re gonna start near the top of the article, then skip to the end:

The Department of Education is proposing a change to the rule to extend Title IX protection to transgender athletes, allowing biological males who identify as female to compete in girl’s and women’s sports.

Protecting women in sports is a cause that Jennifer Sey, the outspoken ex-Levi’s global brand president and named twice to Forbes’ Most Influential CMO list, cares passionately about.

and let’s cut out some self-important claptrap and excessive bigotry, and go right to where they make the opposite point of the one they think they’re making:

Before the law, the ratio of girls’ to boys’ participation in high school sports rose from less than 10% in 1971 to over 40% in 2023, according to the National Federation of State High School Associations. Title IX unlocked similar opportunities for women in collegiate sports, rising from 15% female participation before to 44% percent today.

“When girls compete in sports, they’re less depressed, have a better body and self image, are less likely to get pregnant in high school, more likely to go to college and have a longer life expectancy,” she observed.

Do you see? They’re saying that social forces effectively prohibited girls from participating in activities that relieve depression, improve self-image, reduce teen pregnancy, increase rates of college education and lengthen life, but that when you write it into law that equal opportunities must be provided by government schools and private schools that rely on government funding, what happens? Not only does sports participation increase, but the demographic as a whole does far better, on many important measures, as a consequence of being permitted to freely and fully participate in society.

Now, if trans kids were already participating in sports at equivalent rates, then the status quo ante might be thought good enough. But while the article is appalled at a participation rate of 10% for girls before Title IX, the participation rate for out trans kids in school sports is literally zero in many states. I may have mentioned this before.

Now I am no Jayne Cobb, but when I calculate 10% of nothing, carry the nothing, I feel like the zero out trans athletes in Mississippi probably represent an even smaller proportion of all trans children today than that 10% of girl athletes represented of all girls in the 1960s. (Mathletes can check me on this.)

The success of Title IX argues for and not against laws and policies encouraging free and full athletic participation of any demographic group who isn’t currently involved at rates that represent similar proportions to all girls today.

Your own example is proving you wrong here, Forbes & Sey.

Oh, and if you want a laughable postscript? The article concludes on this note:

“I hate putting us in the conservative category, because this has nothing to do with right or left; it’s just biology,” she concluded.

Except, not.

If it were just biology, Sey wouldn’t be talking about Title IX and the Biden administration’s efforts to provide a new welcome to trans athletes. We’re talking about laws and policies, Sey herself is talking about laws and policies.

If she only wanted to chat about chromosomes and genes and promoters and inhibitors I could introduce her to a couple biology professors I know and she could find years worth of complications to explore.

The fact that she thinks that Title IX is just biology, and not a collection of legislative regimes fought for by feminists to achieve feminist ends, shows just how fully and completely she’s deluded herself.