I'll engage. I think your comments are clearly bigoted, and I'll tell you why.
What you do with that is up to you.
> Hmm, somehow I knew Justine is a 'transwoman' by this feat. Lucky guess I suppose...
You use scare quotes around "transwoman". Why is that? Is that a concept you
believe is not real somehow?
You are guessing that something technically impressive was achieved by a
trans woman. Why is that? Are women not capable of technical feats?
> Lucky guess I suppose...
This implies that women being technically inferior is something obvious,
something we all know but can't say.
> If all the high achieving women in tech end up being [yet-again-scare-quotes (and for some reason one word)] "transwomen", ...
This isn't a playful hypothetical question. You are reinforcing your claim that
women in tech are not high achieving.
> I think trans/self identifying people should be in a separate category so they don't exploit allowances made for under represented minorities.
> So when the dominant group starts taking the identity of underrepresented groups and coopting their protections
From these two statements it is clear you think that trans women are the
dominant group (men?) that are exploiting special allowances meant for women.
Because in your eyes trans women do not count as women. And they don't deserve
protection.
You are getting downvoted because the community recognizes the bigotry against
cis and trans women that is the backbone of your two comments.
> Hmm, somehow I knew Justine is a 'transwoman' by this feat. Lucky guess I suppose...
You use scare quotes around "transwoman". Why is that? Is that a concept you believe is not real somehow?
You are guessing that something technically impressive was achieved by a trans woman. Why is that? Are women not capable of technical feats?
> Lucky guess I suppose...
This implies that women being technically inferior is something obvious, something we all know but can't say.
> If all the high achieving women in tech end up being [yet-again-scare-quotes (and for some reason one word)] "transwomen", ...
This isn't a playful hypothetical question. You are reinforcing your claim that women in tech are not high achieving.
> I think trans/self identifying people should be in a separate category so they don't exploit allowances made for under represented minorities.
> So when the dominant group starts taking the identity of underrepresented groups and coopting their protections
From these two statements it is clear you think that trans women are the dominant group (men?) that are exploiting special allowances meant for women. Because in your eyes trans women do not count as women. And they don't deserve protection.
You are getting downvoted because the community recognizes the bigotry against cis and trans women that is the backbone of your two comments.