"Exactly how ignoring the accomplishments of a trans-women in order to not hurt cis women’s feelings is “true” and “fair” remains a mystery to me. "
Shouldn't be much of a mystery. There is only one winner in a sporting event. You have to choose which competitor's accomplishment will be ignored. You apparently think it's worse if Thomas's is ignored; others believe it's worse if Weyant's is ignored. Pick your poison. :-)
(Also, probably best if you don't fall into this mysogenistic "oh, the woman's feelings got hurt" nonsense. Men have been using that junk to marginalize women for all of human history. Just stop it.)
"Cissexism is built on the idea that all those who fall outside of patriarchal norms are somehow “less than.”"
No, it's not. Although this is a bit of a linguistics problem with English, pointing out a difference does not imply a "greater than" or "less than" relationship. So, if a person is making a rational argument (perhaps based on red twitch muscle fibers, for example) as to why born males should not complete in female categories, you cannot assume they are also implying a superiority in the state of being of one over the other.
"So, when someone like a trans-woman competes in a sport and wins first place, this is seen as a threat to patriarchy. "
Just the opposite. Men control sporting federations and eligibility rules, and have been fighting back against women participation and input into eligibility forever. It was just this past Olympics, 2021, that women first competed the 1500m freestyle, an event which has been part of the World Championships forever. Why's that? Because the IOC men controlling the agenda didn't want to create scheduling conflicts with other (male) events. So, to them, if they can create conflict and dissension among female athletes that might lessen female interest in participation, to them that's all goodness.
"Of course, the defenders of patriarchy never frame it that way. They always pretend that by attacking trans-women, they are defending real, “biological women” against “the injustice of biological males competing in women’s sports.”"
Yea, science sucks. Let's get rid of it. :-)
"What they fail to understand is that, when it comes to freedom, its very black and white. Either you support freedom for marginalized people, or you don’t. And if you don’t, you might as well save everyone’s time and admit it."
The problem with your position is that it entirely misses the point. The debate about transwomen participation really has nothing to do with "trans" or "rights" at all. It's simply an extension of a 50 year old debate (maybe longer) about how to police the female sporting category for fairness. It really doesn't matter if the unfair advantage is being gained by the use of PEDs, superior equipment, swim fins, or being born male.
The question for women is how to insure competition in our category is fair to us. And there is a lot of history that shows that the men who dominate sporting federations won't do this for us; we have to do it ourselves.
