Article A First Nations woman is being sued for calling four women “pretendians” (Canada)

[C C]

A First Nations woman is being sued for calling four women “pretendians,” with the plaintiffs seeking more than $500,000 in damages and retractions to the heavily publicized comments made about them.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/wo...g-identity

INTRO: Michelle Christine Cameron, also known as Crystal Semaganis, who heads the Ghost Warrior Society, says she conducts research to safeguard community spaces designated for Indigenous Peoples and says those pretending to be Indigenous pose a real harm to communities and nations.

In the lawsuit filed in July to the Supreme Court of Yukon, Amanda Buffalo, Krista Reid, Amaris Manderschied and their mother Louise Darroch, say Semaganis conducted research into their backgrounds and concluded they are of Ukrainian heritage, not Indigenous, and then engaged in a “relentless” social media campaign against them.

Court documents say she is accused of calling them “‘grifters,’ liars and racists who exploit their falsely claimed Indigenous heritage for personal gain.”

The four women, three of whom hold positions working with or for Indigenous communities, are collectively seeking more than $500,000 in damages, as well as public retractions to the statements made by Semaganis.

The women, through their lawyer, declined to comment beyond what was contained in the statement of claim.

The lawsuit against Semaganis says beginning in late October 2024, Semaganis has engaged in a “relentless libelous campaign against the plaintiffs,” and that they have endured “significant harms to personal and professional reputations, serious psychological harms, loss of income, loss of academic opportunities and loss of business opportunities.”

The lawsuit says Darroch was adopted by a non-Indigenous couple, and was informed later in life she has Indigenous heritage.

While looking into the family — something Semaganis said she does only after she receives about 10 complaints from the public — the court document says Semaganis reached out to Darroch for information about her heritage, and she explained the adoption.

Semaganis, in turn, presented her with research that concluded she is of Ukrainian descent, and began broadcasting the information on her social media platforms — messaging the four women say is defamatory and want removed.

The Canadian Press has not seen or verified any of her research. None of the claims in the lawsuit have been tested in court.

Semaganis said she has not yet been formally served, but has received letters from the women’s’ lawyer to which she has not responded... (MORE - details)
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

If men can assert that they are women and have that substantiated on their IDs, then there should be universal consistency in accepting that individuals are whatever other class of identity that they claim they are. After all, radical egalitarianism is one of the goals of literary intellectual ideology. Allowing exceptions is a discoloration on that pristine surface, and giving some human distinctions protective privileges opens the door to unequal compromising of radical civil rights and entitlements.

That includes trans-ethnic and trans-racial areas. The contention that certain ethnic population groups are "special" in a way that women are not -- because of past and current oppression against them -- and therefore an outsider can't infringe upon their ethnic identity -- is ridiculously hypocritical. Given that women struggled under oppression as much as anybody in that "extra tier" context that goes beyond just their membership in a particular ethnic group.

Ergo, from the broad POV -- the overarching agenda -- what's the beef about individuals of Ukrainian ancestry asserting that they are indigenous people of Canada?

Ultimately, what's going on here is each group (race, sex, culture, etc) having its own self-serving interests and pre-existing motivations for cherry-picking together a formula of reasons for why "You can not join our club. But it's okay to encroach upon other clubs in the name of achieving socioeconomic utopia. We're special, but the rest may not be so protected."

Mindless nature doesn't care anymore about enforcing the invented BS of humanities scholars anymore than it does the invented BS of religion. It boils down to how good your club is at conning the masses to accept your concocted BS that is actually a product of personal interests and motivated reasoning.

BACKGROUND: "Is it morally wrong for a man to claim to be a woman?" Holly Lawford-Smith (University of Melbourne)
https://uchv.princeton.edu/events/it-mor...-melbourne

ABSTRACT: Is it morally wrong for a man to claim to be a woman? We’re in a cultural moment in which there is widespread support among progressives for the claim that some men (males) make to be women. It is taboo to question this claim, and many who have done so have been publicly vilified. Such vilification puts people off thinking carefully about the claim, and may provide cover to an anti-feminist politics.

Thus in this talk I will consider the case against men (males) claiming to be women, asking whether—and if so, why—it is morally wrong for them to do so. In the first part of the talk I’ll put forward the feminist case against men claiming to be women, drawing on ideas from the second wave feminists who wrote on this topic.

In the second part of the talk I’ll focus on the countervailing reasons that have been offered in the literature for thinking that a man has a right to claim to be a woman. (Some of these are directly about gender identity others are about identity more generally but can be applied to thinking about men’s claims to be women).

I’ll argue that none of these latter arguments succeed; and both that many (although not all) of the men who claim to be women are doing something wrong, and that as a society we are wrong to give men’s claims to be women social and legal uptake. Most egregiously, we are wrong to support ‘sex self-identification’ laws that allow any man to have his alleged gender identity as ‘woman’ (or as ‘female’) recognized via a change to his legal sex status.

[Syne]

Like it or not... in light of egalitarianism... women have a privileged position in, at least Western, society. For a variety of reasons that make them more vulnerable than men, they are afforded certain latitudes men generally are not. So a man unilaterally claiming that privilege, without the vulnerability it is meant to counterbalance, is literally taking advantage... which is not given nor deserved.

[C C]

Like it or not... in light of egalitarianism... women have a privileged position in, at least Western, society. For a variety of reasons that make them more vulnerable than men, they are afforded certain latitudes men generally are not. So a man unilaterally claiming that privilege, without the vulnerability it is meant to counterbalance, is literally taking advantage... which is not given nor deserved.

I'd go with that just for the sake of highlighting how the establishment has it just the opposite (or at least imbalanced). 

It is racial identity transitions that are forbidden -- especially with respect to privileged outsiders intruding on ethnic population groups in that manner. But the establishment cares not a whit about sexual identity transitions encroaching upon the population group of women.

Both have historic and current claims to victimhood, that ultimately seem to factor into the reason for protection form transitional invaders trying to acquire or participate in their identity.

Women have their own unique tier of victimhood that is distinct from their contingent membership in an ethnic category. But it is simply ignored: "Come on in guys, the water's fine! If you're an Anglo whitey, it's a lot more kosher to declare yourself a woman than declare yourself a Black, Latino, Asian, Arab, indigene, etc. Left activism may really kick your ass if you try the latter! (Though there are some celebrity exceptions.)"

It is in this arena that the radical feminists (many of whom were lesbians back in the '70s, and still are to a great extent) emerge as the true adherents. Call them TERFs all day long, and threaten them, and the gender-critical feminists just raise their crusader sword higher. 

Whereas the other categories of feminism easily relent when general social justice leadership barks at them to allow trans-women to enter their club. Which demonstrates that they are actually more devoted to the broad advance of critical theory -- to the overall various movements, instead of their own sexual identity receiving priority. (That's been an acknowledged given for quite a while, in the course of multiple stage developments from the early days.)

The point here is not who is more noble, but the inconsistency. The legacy of female oppression is deemed insufficient to warrant protection from identity appropriation ("I want to identify as woman"), whereas ethnic identity appropriation is deemed a sin of great magnitude ("I want to identify as Black").  Apart, again, from unique or individual cases where fame or stardom or whatever factor results in a special trans-racial acceptance.

[Syne]

Yeah, and the ethnic groups supposedly violated are not as vulnerable, as a group, as women. So men are allowed to "colonize" women, but not blacks, indigenous, etc..
Like most leftists, politics trumps everything else. So non-TERF feminism is secondary to leftism, as well as any other minority group that doesn't immediately serve leftist political needs at the moment.

Although, with new-wave feminism's demand that men and women are interchangeable widgets, the trans infiltration was already astroturfed.
The left doesn't care about consistency, because their constituency has notoriously short memories and zero care for consistency themselves. Hypocrisy might as well be a feature of the left, rather than a flaw.

[Railko]

Ergo, from the broad POV -- the overarching agenda -- what's the beef about individuals of Ukrainian ancestry asserting that they are indigenous people of Canada?

I think part of the issue is that race and ethnicity generally aren't seen as flexible as gender and sex, and so there tends to be stricter barriers there. Men and women are generally seen as equal in most areas - a woman could become a baseball player, a man a ballerina, a woman could have no maternal instincts and a man could be nurturing and loving - and so it's not that much of a stretch even if you don't believe in trans people to imagine a man filling the "woman role", or vice versa. In comparison, race is often seen more like a poison - the one drop rule for black people, the idea that you could "kill the Indian and save the man", the idea that you can assimilate and purify a race via giving them your culture. If you're associating with another culture you're on some level expected to be that culture, and in a way that ethnicity or race, tainted by them.

Additionally, women can also identify as men, meaning that it's not a group of people trying to take advantage of another disenfranchised group, but a phenomenon that exists in both groups. I don't know how many minorities identify as white, but if more of them were coming out it would even the playing field and convince people that trans-racial is a real thing.

Logically I would argue that it would be valid to identify as another race or ethnicity from an experience POV, but it wouldn't be treated the same if minorities wanted to do it (a black person claiming they're really white on the inside is going to be treated just as poorly, if not worse, as a white person claiming the same) which may explain the outcry, and ethnicities are often treated like this untouchable thing even by people who claim to be colorblind, instead of fluid like gender roles.

[Syne]

Sex (biological) is not "flexible." And gender, as a social construct distinct from sex, is a new contrivance, where research has proven that sex-based interests, roles, behaviors, etc. are evident in infancy, even among apes. Men and women are not seen as equal, otherwise the athleticism of women's sports would garner the same interest/revenue as men's, women wouldn't be the default caregiver in family courts, etc.. There are some "roles" that are socially sexed, but conflating those with instinctual biological differences, in order to lump everything into being "flexible," is intellectually dishonest or ignorant of the science.

What's with all the blatantly racist tropes? "Poison, one drop, purify, tainted"? Sounds like you're endorsing the segregation of races... if not actual racism.

Since men are not a relatively vulnerable group, there is no real benefit derived by a woman trying to be a man. If anything, she is at a huge disadvantage. So yes, MTF is taking advantage of a disenfranchised group (women disenfranchised from women-only space, safety, privacy, and consent), while FTM doesn't really have the power to disenfranchise anyone. In the oppressor/oppressed ideology, only the one with power can be the oppressor. And as a simple matter of relative potential force, it's clear which sex is disenfranchised.

If you're talking about actual social constructs, the cultures that most define races, and would be the behaviors mimicked by a trans-racial, are far more superficial than biological sex traits, behaviors, etc.. The only seeming difference between a white guy who likes rap, dresses and speaks black, etc. and the same guy also claiming to be black would seem to be the jealous possessiveness of blacks toward their own identity.

Why is it we respect that identity possessiveness from racial minorities but completely dismiss it from women? Sex is scientifically much more definite than race, which is largely just a subjective classification of appearance (as evidence mix-race twin sisters, where one looked completely white and the other completely black).

Is it just that men, who want to be women, are more assertive, because they're men, than the women who might try to protest the appropriation of their identity?

[Railko]

Sex (biological) is not "flexible." And gender, as a social construct distinct from sex, is a new contrivance, where research has proven that sex-based interests, roles, behaviors, etc. are evident in infancy, even among apes. Men and women are not seen as equal, otherwise the athleticism of women's sports would garner the same interest/revenue as men's, women wouldn't be the default caregiver in family courts, etc.. There are some "roles" that are socially sexed, but conflating those with instinctual biological differences, in order to lump everything into being "flexible," is intellectually dishonest or ignorant of the science.

Most of that is because of sexism. If women were valued more, treated more like human beings, etc. then women's sports would garner the same interest (it has been picking up in recent months, so it can't all be biological), women would not be the default caregiver (as some women should not have kids) or given stereotyped roles like that. 
 

What's with all the blatantly racist tropes? "Poison, one drop, purify, tainted"? Sounds like you're endorsing the segregation of races... if not actual racism.

One drop rule:
"The nation's answer to the question 'Who is black?" has long been that a black is any person with any known African black ancestry. This definition reflects the long experience with slavery and later with Jim Crow segregation. In the South it became known as the "one-drop rule,'' meaning that a single drop of "black blood" makes a person a black. It is also known as the "one black ancestor rule," some courts have called it the "traceable amount rule," and anthropologists call it the "hypo-descent rule," meaning that racially mixed persons are assigned the status of the subordinate group. This definition emerged from the American South to become the nation's definition, generally accepted by whites and blacks. Blacks had no other choice."

Not only does the one-drop rule apply to no other group than American blacks, but apparently the rule is unique in that it is found only in the United States and not in any other nation in the world. In fact, definitions of who is black vary quite sharply from country to country, and for this reason people in other countries often express consternation about our definition. James Baldwin relates a revealing incident that occurred in 1956 at the Conference of Negro-African Writers and Artists held in Paris. The head of the delegation of writers and artists from the United States was John Davis. The French chairperson introduced Davis and then asked him why he considered himself Negro, since he certainly did not look like one. Baldwin wrote, "He is a Negro, of course, from the remarkable legal point of view which obtains in the United States, but more importantly, as he tried to make clear to his interlocutor, he was a Negro by choice and by depth of involvement--by experience, in fact.""

Kill the Indian in him, and save the man:

"The ideas expressed in Pratt's speech are central to the development of the Carlisle Indian School (founded 1879) and other boarding schools across the country, which aimed to "civilize" and "Americanize" the Indian."

It's basic history, for most Americans. Race and ethnicity are treated like a poison, where if you're too involved with one for all intents and purposes you are one.

Since men are not a relatively vulnerable group, there is no real benefit derived by a woman trying to be a man. If anything, she is at a huge disadvantage.

The benefits are less pronounced nowadays, but a woman would still get a lot of benefit by trying to be a man. Being taken seriously, being able to work and live without harassment, being treated as an equal, not having to wear uncomfortable clothes... and if we're talking about transmen, probably losing the ability to have a period is a huge benefit, if they didn't want kids.

If you're talking about actual social constructs, the cultures that most define races, and would be the behaviors mimicked by a trans-racial, are far more superficial than biological sex traits, behaviors, etc.. The only seeming difference between a white guy who likes rap, dresses and speaks black, etc. and the same guy also claiming to be black would seem to be the jealous possessiveness of blacks toward their own identity.

That is what I'm talking about. In a way it's easier for a transracial person to actually transition to their identified race, but iit seems off limits to claim the race because minorites are historically never offered that privilege. 

From the same article about one drop rule:
"Not only does the one-drop rule apply to no other group than American blacks, but apparently the rule is unique in that it is found only in the United States and not in any other nation in the world. In fact, definitions of who is black vary quite sharply from country to country, and for this reason people in other countries often express consternation about our definition. James Baldwin relates a revealing incident that occurred in 1956 at the Conference of Negro-African Writers and Artists held in Paris. The head of the delegation of writers and artists from the United States was John Davis. The French chairperson introduced Davis and then asked him why he considered himself Negro, since he certainly did not look like one. Baldwin wrote, "He is a Negro, of course, from the remarkable legal point of view which obtains in the United States, but more importantly, as he tried to make clear to his interlocutor, he was a Negro by choice and by depth of involvement--by experience, in fact.""

Why is it we respect that identity possessiveness from racial minorities but completely dismiss it from women? Sex is scientifically much more definite than race, which is largely just a subjective classification of appearance (as evidence mix-race twin sisters, where one looked completely white and the other completely black).

I'm guessing because of the above history. In the past (and today) race and ethnicity has been treated as solid and objective (and to be fair, there are some objective traits with regards to different races) but also like something negative that in some cases can be passed between people, or lost with the proper training. Like how they were trying to socialize the native out of the native American, but black people were always black and outcast. In both cases however neither group was allowed to be themselves, only encouraged to be culturally white, so now seeing a white person enter those spaces feels disconcerting.

[Syne]

Sex (biological) is not "flexible." And gender, as a social construct distinct from sex, is a new contrivance, where research has proven that sex-based interests, roles, behaviors, etc. are evident in infancy, even among apes. Men and women are not seen as equal, otherwise the athleticism of women's sports would garner the same interest/revenue as men's, women wouldn't be the default caregiver in family courts, etc.. There are some "roles" that are socially sexed, but conflating those with instinctual biological differences, in order to lump everything into being "flexible," is intellectually dishonest or ignorant of the science.

Most of that is because of sexism. If women were valued more, treated more like human beings, etc. then women's sports would garner the same interest (it has been picking up in recent months, so it can't all be biological), women would not be the default caregiver (as some women should not have kids) or given stereotyped roles like that. 

Complete bullshit. Take the WNBA, which has to subsidized by the NBA just to exist. But then Caitlin Clark shows legit athletic skill and people are suddenly interested in it.
Can't be sexism if simple meritocracy proves you wrong. When high school boys can beat supposed professional women's soccer players, there's obviously a huge, objective disparity in athletic skill.
Women as caregivers is, again, part of their sex-based interests and behavior from infancy, backed up by primate studies.

What's with all the blatantly racist tropes? "Poison, one drop, purify, tainted"? Sounds like you're endorsing the segregation of races... if not actual racism.

One drop rule:
"The nation's answer to the question 'Who is black?" has long been that a black is any person with any known African black ancestry. This definition reflects the long experience with slavery and later with Jim Crow segregation. In the South it became known as the "one-drop rule,'' meaning that a single drop of "black blood" makes a person a black. It is also known as the "one black ancestor rule," some courts have called it the "traceable amount rule," and anthropologists call it the "hypo-descent rule," meaning that racially mixed persons are assigned the status of the subordinate group. This definition emerged from the American South to become the nation's definition, generally accepted by whites and blacks. Blacks had no other choice."

Not only does the one-drop rule apply to no other group than American blacks, but apparently the rule is unique in that it is found only in the United States and not in any other nation in the world. In fact, definitions of who is black vary quite sharply from country to country, and for this reason people in other countries often express consternation about our definition. James Baldwin relates a revealing incident that occurred in 1956 at the Conference of Negro-African Writers and Artists held in Paris. The head of the delegation of writers and artists from the United States was John Davis. The French chairperson introduced Davis and then asked him why he considered himself Negro, since he certainly did not look like one. Baldwin wrote, "He is a Negro, of course, from the remarkable legal point of view which obtains in the United States, but more importantly, as he tried to make clear to his interlocutor, he was a Negro by choice and by depth of involvement--by experience, in fact.""

Kill the Indian in him, and save the man:

"The ideas expressed in Pratt's speech are central to the development of the Carlisle Indian School (founded 1879) and other boarding schools across the country, which aimed to "civilize" and "Americanize" the Indian."

It's basic history, for most Americans. Race and ethnicity are treated like a poison, where if you're too involved with one for all intents and purposes you are one.

Suspicious to bring up half-century old history, especially when you sound like you think it's still relevant today.
So one has to wonder why you'd even bring up these racist tropes... if not to vent your own racism.

Since men are not a relatively vulnerable group, there is no real benefit derived by a woman trying to be a man. If anything, she is at a huge disadvantage.

The benefits are less pronounced nowadays, but a woman would still get a lot of benefit by trying to be a man. Being taken seriously, being able to work and live without harassment, being treated as an equal, not having to wear uncomfortable clothes... and if we're talking about transmen, probably losing the ability to have a period is a huge benefit, if they didn't want kids.

Men are only taken seriously if they are competent, strong, etc.. Trans men will always be at a disadvantage. Men do not treat each other as equals, as there is always a competence/strength hierarchy. And plenty of women, wear whatever they want. Just look at Billie Eilish. The right birth control, hysterectomy, becoming an athlete, etc. can stop periods. Becoming a very weak trans man to accomplish that would just be stupid.

Maybe you are a woman, since you have so many ignorant ideas of what being a man means.

If you're talking about actual social constructs, the cultures that most define races, and would be the behaviors mimicked by a trans-racial, are far more superficial than biological sex traits, behaviors, etc.. The only seeming difference between a white guy who likes rap, dresses and speaks black, etc. and the same guy also claiming to be black would seem to be the jealous possessiveness of blacks toward their own identity.

That is what I'm talking about. In a way it's easier for a transracial person to actually transition to their identified race, but iit seems off limits to claim the race because minorites are historically never offered that privilege. 

So since women, who can't threaten men, can pretend to be men, it's okay for men, who can threaten women, to pretend to be women?
The sexes are not interchangeable widgets.

From the same article about one drop rule:
...

I'm not interested in you continuing to spew racist tropes.

Why is it we respect that identity possessiveness from racial minorities but completely dismiss it from women? Sex is scientifically much more definite than race, which is largely just a subjective classification of appearance (as evidence mix-race twin sisters, where one looked completely white and the other completely black).

I'm guessing because of the above history. In the past (and today) race and ethnicity has been treated as solid and objective (and to be fair, there are some objective traits with regards to different races) but also like something negative that in some cases can be passed between people, or lost with the proper training. Like how they were trying to socialize the native out of the native American, but black people were always black and outcast. In both cases however neither group was allowed to be themselves, only encouraged to be culturally white, so now seeing a white person enter those spaces feels disconcerting.

Race is not an objective, biological category, but a social construct
. Major scientific and anthropological organizations agree that human beings are not divided into biologically distinct racial groups. Instead, race is a system of classification invented by societies to categorize and rank people based on perceived physical differences.
- Google AI

Every time you bring up old history, you suspiciously focus on racism... like you're drawn to it.

[Railko]

Complete bullshit. Take the WNBA, which has to subsidized by the NBA just to exist. But then Caitlin Clark shows legit athletic skill and people are suddenly interested in it.
Can't be sexism if simple meritocracy proves you wrong. When high school boys can beat supposed professional women's soccer players, there's obviously a huge, objective disparity in athletic skill.
Women as caregivers is, again, part of their sex-based interests and behavior from infancy, backed up by primate studies.

Then they should be paid what they're worth:

"None of those players are suggesting that they should be paid the same as their counterparts in the NBA, where league revenues top $10bn a year. But they surely deserve more, considering the WNBA rookie minimum is just $66,000 compared to $1.27m in the NBA."

And monkey studies are disputed.

Suspicious to bring up half-century old history, especially when you sound like you think it's still relevant today.
So one has to wonder why you'd even bring up these racist tropes... if not to vent your own racism.

Well, maybe because it was relevant to the topic?

Men are only taken seriously if they are competent, strong, etc.. Trans men will always be at a disadvantage. Men do not treat each other as equals, as there is always a competence/strength hierarchy. And plenty of women, wear whatever they want. Just look at Billie Eilish. The right birth control, hysterectomy, becoming an athlete, etc. can stop periods. Becoming a very weak trans man to accomplish that would just be stupid.

Maybe you are a woman, since you have so many ignorant ideas of what being a man means.

Socially, men are treated as equals. There may be a hierarchy, but men generally treat each other with a certain level of respect that they won't offer women. That's why men get better pay, better medical treatment, and (generally) don't have to worry about things like rape, harassment, etc. Women cannot often wear what they want, there are dress codes that sometimes enforce normative forms of dress.

And trans men say otherwise:
"Many trans men I spoke with said they had no idea how rough women at work had it until they transitioned. As soon as they came out as men, they found their missteps minimized and their successes amplified. Often, they say, their words carried more weight: They seemed to gain authority and professional respect overnight. They also saw confirmation of the sexist attitudes they had long suspected: They recalled hearing female colleagues belittled by male bosses, or female job applicants called names."

Some trans men have noticed the professional benefits of maleness. James Gardner is a newscaster in Victoria, Canada, who had been reading the news as Sheila Gardner for almost three decades before he transitioned at 54. As soon as he began hosting as a man, he stopped getting as many calls from men pointing out tiny errors. “It was always male callers to Sheila saying I had screwed up my grammar, correcting me,” he says. “I don’t get as many calls to James correcting me. I’m the same person, but the men are less critical of James.”"

I'm not interested in you continuing to spew racist tropes.

Interesting how you consider history "racist tropes". Well, I'm not interested in talking to a racist.

So since women, who can't threaten men, can pretend to be men, it's okay for men, who can threaten women, to pretend to be women?
The sexes are not interchangeable widgets.

Where did threats come into play? Neither threatens anybody, nor is anybody allowed to threaten anybody. But being trans is an equal likelihood phenomena - men can be trans, women can be trans.

Race is not an objective, biological category, but a social construct
. Major scientific and anthropological organizations agree that human beings are not divided into biologically distinct racial groups. Instead, race is a system of classification invented by societies to categorize and rank people based on perceived physical differences.
- Google AI

Every time you bring up old history, you suspiciously focus on racism... like you're drawn to it.

Yes, I suppose people actively affected by racism will acknowledge the effects of it on current day views and behaviors... unlike you.

[Syne]

Complete bullshit. Take the WNBA, which has to subsidized by the NBA just to exist. But then Caitlin Clark shows legit athletic skill and people are suddenly interested in it.
Can't be sexism if simple meritocracy proves you wrong. When high school boys can beat supposed professional women's soccer players, there's obviously a huge, objective disparity in athletic skill.
Women as caregivers is, again, part of their sex-based interests and behavior from infancy, backed up by primate studies.

Then they should be paid what they're worth:

"None of those players are suggesting that they should be paid the same as their counterparts in the NBA, where league revenues top $10bn a year. But they surely deserve more, considering the WNBA rookie minimum is just $66,000 compared to $1.27m in the NBA."

The WNBA has been operating at a huge loss for years. They have motherhood and pregnancy benefits the NBA does not... which obviously includes them not being able to do the job.
IOW, the WNBA has a revenue deficit to make up. And this critically relies on whether the current interest can be maintained. No investor pays more until an asset has proven its value over the long term.

And monkey studies are disputed.

Far smaller sample size of older monkeys. Do you understand how that makes the results weaker?

Suspicious to bring up half-century old history, especially when you sound like you think it's still relevant today.
So one has to wonder why you'd even bring up these racist tropes... if not to vent your own racism.

Well, maybe because it was relevant to the topic?

It's not. But it does seem to be a fixation of yours.

Men are only taken seriously if they are competent, strong, etc.. Trans men will always be at a disadvantage. Men do not treat each other as equals, as there is always a competence/strength hierarchy. And plenty of women, wear whatever they want. Just look at Billie Eilish. The right birth control, hysterectomy, becoming an athlete, etc. can stop periods. Becoming a very weak trans man to accomplish that would just be stupid.

Maybe you are a woman, since you have so many ignorant ideas of what being a man means.

Socially, men are treated as equals. There may be a hierarchy, but men generally treat each other with a certain level of respect that they won't offer women. That's why men get better pay, better medical treatment, and (generally) don't have to worry about things like rape, harassment, etc. Women cannot often wear what they want, there are dress codes that sometimes enforce normative forms of dress.

Again, men get better pay and medical treatment because they are more assertive. Women don't treat men like they do other women either. This is simply because men and women are different. Yes, the strength disparity between men and women means women are more vulnerable... as I've repeatedly said. Dress code policies apply to both men and women.

And trans men say otherwise:
"Many trans men I spoke with said they had no idea how rough women at work had it until they transitioned. As soon as they came out as men, they found their missteps minimized and their successes amplified. Often, they say, their words carried more weight: They seemed to gain authority and professional respect overnight. They also saw confirmation of the sexist attitudes they had long suspected: They recalled hearing female colleagues belittled by male bosses, or female job applicants called names."

Some trans men have noticed the professional benefits of maleness. James Gardner is a newscaster in Victoria, Canada, who had been reading the news as Sheila Gardner for almost three decades before he transitioned at 54. As soon as he began hosting as a man, he stopped getting as many calls from men pointing out tiny errors. “It was always male callers to Sheila saying I had screwed up my grammar, correcting me,” he says. “I don’t get as many calls to James correcting me. I’m the same person, but the men are less critical of James.”"

Three guys are sitting at a Harlem bartop eating fries, drinking whiskey and talking about love. One of them, Bryce Richardson, is about to propose to his girlfriend.

“I’m putting it together in my head, I’m like: ‘He’s gonna be one of my groomsmen, he’s gonna be one of my groomsmen,’” he points to his two friends and grins. The other men light up when they hear the news and start talking about rings, how much they cost, will it be princess cut or pear shaped?
...
All three men are trans. But if they hadn’t said so, you wouldn’t have known.
- https://time.com/transgender-men-sexism/

Really? Wouldn't have know that three guys sitting at a bar, talking about the cut of wedding rings, are trans?
The author, a woman, doesn't seem to have any idea what real men talk about.
These are anecdotal, at best.

“As a man, you’re assumed to be competent unless proven otherwise,” she says. “Whereas as a woman you’re presumed to be incompetent unless proven otherwise.”
...
“After transitioning I was able to think more clearly, I was more decisive,” says the radio newscaster Gardner. He says the shift has affected his daily routine, even for something as ordinary as a trip to the grocery store. Before he transitioned, he says, he used to spend 45 minutes debating which pasta sauce to buy, which vegetables were the freshest. “I would stand there and look at the different varieties of yogurt,” he recalls. “Now I just grab one. I’m looking for utility, I don’t second-guess myself.”
- https://time.com/transgender-men-sexism/

So she literally says she can think more clearly and be more decisive after taking testosterone. Those are both traits of competent people. Indecision and not being assertive signal lack of self-confidence and competence. People read and react to those cues, from men or women.

I'm not interested in you continuing to spew racist tropes.

Interesting how you consider history "racist tropes". Well, I'm not interested in talking to a racist.

I think you're projecting.
Trying to cover repeatedly bringing up obviously racist tropes as just history would be how a racist tries to justify their racism.

So since women, who can't threaten men, can pretend to be men, it's okay for men, who can threaten women, to pretend to be women?
The sexes are not interchangeable widgets.

Where did threats come into play? Neither threatens anybody, nor is anybody allowed to threaten anybody. But being trans is an equal likelihood phenomena - men can be trans, women can be trans.

You seemed to imply that it would only be acceptable for a white person to be trans racial if minorities could readily be trans white.
The analog would be it being acceptable for men being trans because women can do so... ignoring the largest disparity between them, e.g. potential threat.

Race is not an objective, biological category, but a social construct
. Major scientific and anthropological organizations agree that human beings are not divided into biologically distinct racial groups. Instead, race is a system of classification invented by societies to categorize and rank people based on perceived physical differences.
- Google AI

Every time you bring up old history, you suspiciously focus on racism... like you're drawn to it.

Yes, I suppose people actively affected by racism will acknowledge the effects of it on current day views and behaviors... unlike you.

Oh, you're a oppressor/oppressed Marxist moron. Those people who claim "systemic racism" but can't point to any laws, policies, etc. that are actually racist. Instead, you only have anecdotes about particular racists, which only effect those involved and are readily addressed legally.