Evan Urquhart

I'm looking in vain for the bit where you "very specifically say it's an analogy that is useful but not perfect and shouldn't be mistaken for saying they're one and the same". And by the last paragraph you're talking flatly without qualifiers about "anti-trans eugenics".

I gave you a screenshot. It says "it's not precisely eugenics". Are you... obsessed with the word analogy? Weird.

Not sure what could be more specific than "it's not precisely eugenics" lmao

It doesn't "very specifically say it's an analogy that is useful but not perfect and shouldn't be mistaken for saying they're one and the same", it says "it's not precisely eugenics" in one place, while calling it eugenics in others.

Even if you had called it an analogy, what a grossly offensive analogy that is, to use deliberate programs of racist mass sterilization as an analogy for entirely reasonable requests for male athletes to stay in their lanes.

No, it consistently says it's a useful framework (ie, not the exact same thing). You're just being overly literal for some reason. And, no, it's not. It's a useful framework, an analogy, if you will.

Chinny reckon… Anyway, you must know on some level how unfair the article is, and that you were asked to write it for a reason. You must have researched the subject, and there's no way you didn't come across the evidence the article ignores.

When you wrote "no trans woman has even qualified, much less dominated, any women’s Olympic sport", I bet a part of you was thinking, "But that's because the rules only changed a year before the last Olympics and required a year of low testosterone."