[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.