hunchle

> Only if you are completely clueless on what marginalization means, which by the rest of your comment, it appears you are.

It would make for a more substantive discussion if you explained why you disagree with my comment - could you elaborate further?

Which aspect of this video convinced you that when men like Levine identify as women, they actually are women, not just men who want to be women? I watched the whole piece and didn't find a persuasive argument in favor of this.

Also their discussion on the Forstater case is out of date; that original judgement they cite was overturned on appeal, and the subsequent employment tribunal found that Forstater had indeed been discriminated against for her gender critical beliefs.

> while the other is criticizing the person for their core identity

Can this really be considered a core identity though? When a man such as Levine assumes an identity of a woman, is this not a form of identity fraud?

Someone appointed to a highly responsible and prestigious government role after a highly successful career, as Levine has, can hardly be described as marginalized.

The Bee's article is more broadly a commentary on how accolades intended for women are now going to men who identify as women - which rather undermines the point of having such awards in the first place. The humor is in inverting this:

"The Babylon Bee has selected Rachel Levine as its first annual Man of the Year. Levine is the U.S. assistant secretary for health for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, where he serves proudly as the first man in that position to dress like a western cultural stereotype of a woman."

Criticizing male dominance like this is very much a 'punching up' type of comedy.

> actually, ascribed gender—assigned at birth

No, it is actually an observation of sex - often observed prenatally, then confirmed at birth.

The wider philosophical point is, if a man has gender dysphoria, does that mean he is a woman, or just wants to be a woman?

If the latter, there should be no issue in a satirical publication making the point that a man who wants to be a woman getting awarded a "Woman of the Year" accolade is nonsensical.

> The award is only ridiculous if you think trans people shouldn't exist in public as openly trans. I mean you even referred to her as "her" so you seemingly recognize that her being eligible for "Woman of the Year" is more appropriate than "Man of the Year".

One issue with people being coerced into using wrong-sex pronouns is that it restricts discussion on this topic.

In this case, for example, if you believe that he shouldn't have been awarded a "Woman of the Year" accolade because he is really a man, but have to refer to him as "her" to be able to say this such that other people can read this - i.e. to avoid your comment being removed or your account banned - then it undermines the entire point being made.

This thoughtful essay discusses some other repercussions of being coerced to use wrong-sex pronouns: https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/

What about if it was someone pretending to be gay, or pretending to be Catholic, or wearing blackface?

That would be a more appropriate analogy to what this official is doing.