[cjcartwright]

Greetings.

I am Cheyenne Cartwright the co-founder of TCombinator, working in tandem with Allison.

I'd like to take the opportunity to address several matters here, point by point.

First, as callahad points out, there is some indirection going on. As people continue to debate the validity of our very existence, as transwoman, the point is being lost that we seek to give viable startups a helping hand by way of investment, a business model that has already proven effective in itself.

Second, our business is being mischaracterized as focusing on our identity. Our business is focused on viable startups, and it is targeted at trans folk. This is a very important difference which is easy to illustrate.

If our business were focused on our identity, especially within the boundaries set by culture at large and how it stereotypes us, then our business would not seek talent and solid ideas to fund. Instead, it would be, at best, a charitable organization aimed at meeting the basic medical needs of transfolk. Alternatively, and in keeping with the general assumptions about us, we would be exploiting trans folk as sex workers, something both I and Allison are intimately familiar with as our job opportunities, education, and even our families turned us out.

Third, generalizing a truth applicable to all humans based on one's own limited observations only manages to show how little observation was accomplished, and how poorly those observations were connected to a claim. Behaviors deemed "gender deviant" are as old as homosexual behaviors (as if we should even dignify the naturalistic fallacy with an endorsement). People say that "transgender" is new, and it is plain that it is only as new as "homosexual" is itself, since no one had that identity, or label, available to them until the late 19th century at the earliest. In any case, it does not mean that there have never been "trans" people until "recently". South Solowesi has, for many centuries, had 5 established genders, and both the kathooey of Thailand and the Hijras of India, along with scores of other peoples have been with us a very long time, and in some cases, before the Common Era.

Fourth, and very briefly, there is no arguing with people who unironically believe either that it is acceptable for everyone that one group be exploited to raise another group up, or that the simple act of being who we are, and daring to show our faces in the world by attempting to be citizens within it, means we deserve a subaltern place in society, that it is the cross we must accept.

Besides, we already do accept it, but we cannot be asked to accept it in silence, or accede to people's ignorant discomfort when it comes to whether or not we have access to housing and meaningful labor.

Beliefs like that are either hardened intractably, or lazy to the point where I doubt this comment will even be read, so I won't argue those points. That's me being realistic.

Even less attention is given to those who thought this post was an appropriate forum for dehumanizing jokes. I can only with you well, and that your companies are never embarrassed by having your identities linked to such talk.

What we want to discuss is business. We have a business model that is tried and true. It will be up to the market to determine the value of what our startups produce, and we accept that. We aren't particularly interested in apologizing for our efforts to move beyond survival sex work, or helping others to do so, nor are we going to have a discussion that assumes from the beginning that our identities, our selves, are up for debate. There are numerous comparable ventures for other minority entrepreneurs, precisely because of how discrimination impacts them, and how "the best person for the job" is often just a mask for the person who had the most privilege in their background to enable their own rise.

We welcome questions about what we want to accomplish and how we will do so, what we are doing now, even some questions about who we are. Just remember that we, like any of you here, are above invasive, cruel, dismissive, or inappropriate questions.

[philwelch]

Here are some legitimate business questions for you, with perhaps one ethical question.

1. If this project is an attempt to move beyond subsistence sex work, how exactly will you raise the funds you intend to invest in trans-founded startups? YCombinator's business model initially depended upon the personal wealth of its founding partners. After proving themselves, they raised further investment and received returns on their earlier investments. How does TCombinator intend to obtain this initial funding source?

2. Founding a startup is an inherently risky and difficult task, requiring great skill and experience. Most successful startup founders have the experience and skill necessary to earn a comfortable living without doing a startup. You mention that the goal of your project is to help others to move beyond subsistence sex work. How can you, in good conscience, expect people with no relevant skills or experience to improve their economic standing by founding startups? Would it not be less risky and more reliable to focus on improving less risky opportunities for trans folk to earn a living outside of sex work?

2a. Founding a startup is also a profoundly stressful and emotionally difficult endeavor. Allison wrote of saving people "on the brink" of "suicide, homelessness, and starvation". As I remarked elsewhere, if you're already facing these stresses in your life, you are less, not more, capable of handling the stresses and responsibilities of a startup.

3. The business model of startup investment is to maximize your odds of investing in a billion dollar company. How is that business model served by artificially restricting the pool of founders you're willing to invest in to less than 1% of the population?

[cjcartwright]

This is intensely appreciated, thank you. I'll take it point by point.

1. Obviously we intend to generate some measure of personal wealth, but it's important to understand what we were able to accomplish with what little we had. Allison will be in Mountain View very shortly, doing some work that I may not be allowed to disclose fully, but can say involves web development and innovation, after having made valuable contacts through her original post. They have expressed interest in funding, since she can show the apps we've received already for a few things, many of which are close to prototype stage. It's hard to say more without her or her backers go ahead.

We must start smaller by force of necessity. Just as micro-loans targeted at women have turned around communities in the developing world, we accept that we must start slow before we can fund enormous projects. That said, just helping Allison get pizza one week and agreeing to take on what work I can do in my part of the country helped her move forward with the infrastructure.

2. It isn't only sex work, that's just something which disproportionately impacts our community. I like to joke sometimes that if the stereotype reflected reality more fully, it would say transwomen are mostly programmers. We want, in time, to be able to support a purely charitable branch, but right now we look to fund only those who have a real startup plan and some tangible work they can show us.

As for whether we can do it in "good conscience", neither of us, especially knowing what we can do and what others can do, are interested in giving people "just enough" to get by while still living at risk. We'll do charitable works, and I spend a great deal of my personal time in that area, but it's not enough, it doesn't change things. We can do both, but our focus is on startups people actually bring to us (5 so far in talks).

2a. Already addressed. We want to help prevent talented and driven people from losing opportunities, and that's the top priority. Allison is one of those. She certainly isn't someone with no skill or education or motivation. The question really is, why take away the hope that comes with believing you can make a difference in your own life by telling someone they shouldn't think about doing better until they get as lucky as many people here already are? With work, meaningful work, comes an anchor and dignity and purpose.

3. That's one model, not the only one. See this: http://www.grameen-info.org/ Further, it's strange to ask why we're so restricted, when investment funds already are seriously restricted to a fraction of the population. They have the same demands of talent and productivity we have, but discriminate based on what gives the absolute highest return, and in many cases sadly, discriminate based on the immutable characteristics of the person applying for the loan or funding. Those are two restrictions we do not have.

Someone I know once made a video diary app in her spare time, no funding. It wasn't unique, had no functionality other apps lacked, wasn't even user friendly, and she doesn't even support it. The app still makes her several hundred a month, and she made it purely as an experiment in her spare time. We don't want to fund poor projects that aren't supported, but that's an example of how we don't have to give up because we can't leap straight to the billion dollar idea.

[philwelch]

"I like to joke sometimes that if the stereotype reflected reality more fully, it would say transwomen are mostly programmers."

So all the stuff about saving transwomen from a life of sex work was...bullshit?

"Further, it's strange to ask why we're so restricted, when investment funds already are seriously restricted to a fraction of the population. They...discriminate based on what gives the absolute highest return...."

Yes, that's the entire point of the business model. When you take that away, you can't claim it's the same proven business model.

I'm sorry, but none of this makes the slightest amount of sense.

[cjcartwright]

That cannot have been in good faith. I merely meant to suggest I have known many who program. We cannot keep demanding that parts represent the whole. On the whole, there are serious problems with access, even for the very educated and talented (some of whom are lucky enough to create their own businesses, and some who protect themselves by doing so anonymously). But there are those who are very skilled and knowledgable and just need access.

And you're right, with those edits in place, it does make little sense. I want to assume good faith, but can't continue when it's demonstrably unavailable.

[philwelch]

You can't have it both ways. Either there's a large pool of experienced and talented trans software developers (in which case they don't really need salvation from poverty and sex work) or the people you're trying to recruit don't have the necessary skills to succeed in technology startups. Furthermore, you can't claim you're following a proven business model while undermining that model.

I'm not saying any of this in bad faith. I just genuinely think this TCombinator concept makes no sense and that your and Allison's statements have been inconsistent and nonsensical. To whatever extent I quoted you out of context, it was to address specific points that the rest of the context still didn't meaningfully address.