> I challenge your contention that "a way to uniquely identify themselves" is a right of biological women or other groups. Never heard of any such right; it sou

> I challenge your contention that "a way to uniquely identify themselves" is a right of biological women or other groups. Never heard of any such right; it sounds totally made up. And yet you've heard of a right for males to claim female's sex-based rights? > Rights are not a zero-sum game or some kind of exhaustible resource; Actually they are. Women have a right to sex-segregated spaces for example, and that doesn't work if they can't claim exclusive use of sex-based identifiers. Women can't have exclusively-women's prisons if men can call themselves women. > You disagree that trans women are women. Fine. Activists are trying to make the case that they are; that womanhood encompasses more than being biologically female, and same for manhood. A lot of people agree. You can volunteer to share your spaces however you like, but you can't make that decision for others no matter how many people you claim agree. Also, you're being disingenuous. Transwomen claim to be female these days - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Levine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Levine - which is clearly untrue even to people who might believe in gender identities. > You say that everyone could identify as black-descendant-of-slavery to access scholarships. I say you are making a laughable category error. But then you reference Rachel, who did exactly that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal Thanks to the modern intentional acceptance of appropriation and colonization other Dolezals aren't being rejected, leading some to simultaneously claim racial and sexual benefits belonging to others. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwen_Benaway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwen_Benaway