Hi.

re "If you're arguing that, say, trans women shouldn't be in the women's division in elite sport because "trans women aren't real women", that's transphobia."

I infer you're implying that an individual is a woman when the individual says so. Hmm. Or is there some other standard? Of course it won't do to limit this just to women because that would be real discrimination, or so it seems to me.

And then there's "real." But we cannot object to that out-of-hand. After all, Kant had an example of real gold coins v. imaginary gold coins. (And never mind the rabbit hole of whether the "real" is an adjective or part of a noun-substantive.)

I invite you to return to the thread and make your distinction or point clearer. Or, that is, to make the rule clearer. I know I do not understand it. And it seems to me that if participation in anything is itself based on anything, that anything ought to be real, yes? Or at least real in reference and wrt to what it is being applied to.

regards,
timw