Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

International

William ‘Lia’ Thomas loses challenge to rule banning him from women’s Olympic contests

Published

6 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

A Court of Arbitration for Sport panel ruled that William ‘Lia’ Thomas, a male swimmer who ‘identifies’ as female, lacked standing to challenge World Aquatics rules on males competing against women.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Switzerland has rejected gender-confused former University of Pennsylvania swimmer William “Lia” Thomas’s bid to change World Aquatic rules to allow himself and other female-“identifying” male athletes from competing against actual women in major athletic competitions such as the upcoming Summer Olympics.

Thomas, who “transitioned” to identifying as a female yet retains male genitalia and reportedly remained heterosexual (despite self-identifying as lesbian), has drawn headlines since 2022 for generating unease among his actual female teammates and opponents, partly due to having to share lockers and partly due to his domination of women’s swimming competitions since switching from the men’s team.

In January, word came out that Thomas and Canadian law firm Tyr were seeking to have the CAS overturn a rule imposed by the swim governing body forbidding any male who has experienced “any part of male puberty” from competing as a female, which in 2022 closed a loophole allowing “transgender” athletes to qualify by reducing their testosterone levels.

Thomas has said that “it’s been a goal of mine to swim at Olympic trials for a very long time.” World Aquatics executive director Brent Nowicki previously said only that the “World Aquatics policy on gender inclusion, adopted by World Aquatics in June of 2022, was rigorously developed on the basis of advice from leading medical and legal experts, and in careful consultation with athletes.”

On Wednesday, the Associated Press reports, a three-judge CAS panel released its ruling dismissing Thomas’s request, on the grounds that he lacked standing to make it because he had not been a member of the court’s member federation USA Swimming when it was first brought nor had he competed in female events “for the purpose of qualification or selection.”

World Aquatics hailed the ruling as “a major step forward in our efforts to protect women’s sport.”

Thomas slammed the decision as “deeply disappointing,” criticizing bans on so-called “trans women” (gender-confused men) competing against actual women as an affront to gender-confused “identities.”

Several nationally-prominent female swimmers who have become outspoken advocates for maintaining sex distinctions in women’s athletics also welcomed the ruling:

There have been numerous high-profile examples in recent years of men winning women’s competitions, and research affirms that physiology gives males distinct athletic advantages that cannot be negated by hormone suppression.

In a 2019 paper published by the Journal of Medical Ethics, New Zealand researchers found that “healthy young men [do] not lose significant muscle mass (or power) when their circulating testosterone levels were reduced to (below International Olympic Committee guidelines) for 20 weeks,” and “indirect effects of testosterone” on factors such as bone structure, lung volume, and heart size “will not be altered” by hormone use; therefore, “the advantage to [gender-confused men] afforded by the [International Olympic Committee] guidelines is an intolerable unfairness.”

Critics also warn that forcing girls to share intimate facilities such as bathrooms, showers, or changing areas with members of the opposite sex violates their privacy rights, subjects them to needless emotional stress, and gives potential male predators a viable pretext to enter female bathrooms or lockers by simply claiming transgender status.

Thomas has become perhaps the most prominent example of the phenomenon. Former teammates have reportedly been intimidated into silence about their objections to Thomas by officials at Ivy League schools and by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), though some have spoken out anonymously, describing Thomas as thoroughly dismissive of the feelings or interests of his teammates.

Some of his opponents have been more willing or able to go public, such as Gaines, who has openly discussed the experience of tying with Thomas for fifth place at the NCAA championships’ 200 freestyle competition in 2022. Despite both swimmers performing the same, Thomas was given a trophy to pose with for photos and Gaines had to settle for one mailed to her.

“It was at this point I realized that they’re trying to save face here,” she told the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2022. “I actually talked with a swimmer who is a survivor of sexual trauma, and being in the locker room with a male and seeing male parts has completely retriggered everything.”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author

Business

Trump eyes end of capital gains tax in 2025

Published on

MXM logo  MxM News

Quick Hit:

In a historic announcement that rattled markets and reignited debate over tax policy, President Donald Trump revealed plans to eliminate the capital gains tax starting in 2025. The unprecedented move would allow Americans to retain all profits from asset sales—whether in stocks, real estate, or other investments. Supporters tout it as a bold pro-growth measure, while critics warn it may cause budget strain and market instability.

Key Details:

  • President Trump announced the elimination of capital gains tax effective 2025, describing it as a move to reward success and promote wealth-building.

  • Currently, capital gains are taxed at rates up to 20%, with additional surcharges for high earners.

  • The announcement caused a major rally across financial markets, though critics claim the change favors the wealthy and could disrupt the economy.

Diving Deeper:

At a press conference on Monday, President Trump laid out a sweeping proposal to eliminate the capital gains tax in its entirety, calling it a “long-overdue correction” to what he described as a punitive tax on prosperity. “Why should you be punished for building wealth?” he asked. “This is America—we reward success.” If enacted, the change would allow investors to retain 100% of profits from the sale of assets such as stocks, homes, and businesses, with zero tax liability.

This proposal marks a sharp departure from decades of entrenched U.S. tax policy. Currently, long-term capital gains are taxed at rates ranging from 0% to 20%, with potential surcharges including the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax for high earners. Trump’s plan would zero out those liabilities entirely starting in the 2025 tax year.

Conservative economists and market analysts have lauded the move as potentially the most transformative supply-side reform since the Reagan era. They argue that removing the tax will unshackle trillions of dollars currently locked in unrealized gains, spurring investment, entrepreneurship, and broader economic dynamism. “This is a game-changer,” said one pro-growth advocate. “It sends a clear message that America is back to being the most investment-friendly nation on Earth.”

Predictably, left-wing critics erupted. One Democratic senator labeled the measure a “grenade” that would detonate the federal budget and widen the wealth gap. Others warned of asset bubbles and increased volatility as investors rush to dump assets ahead of the reform’s implementation. These concerns, however, do not seem to have spooked the markets—at least not yet.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped nearly 600 points following the announcement, while cryptocurrencies surged on expectations of tax-free gains. Real estate portals and trading platforms like Robinhood and E*TRADE saw surges in activity as users began strategizing around the policy’s timing. Online, the announcement triggered a wave of memes and commentary. The hashtag #NoCapGains began trending on X (formerly Twitter), with some calling it a “wealth liberation act” and others denouncing it as “Robin Hood in reverse.”

Legislation to formalize the proposal is expected to hit Congress within weeks. While Republicans have largely expressed support, Democrats are preparing for a fierce battle. It’s unclear whether some establishment Republicans—many of whom have been resistant to bold reform under Trump—will help move the bill forward or slow-walk it in favor of more moderate compromises.

Until the law is officially passed, financial advisors are urging caution. “The promise of zero capital gains tax is tempting,” one planner said, “but don’t bet the farm until it’s signed, sealed, and delivered.”

Still, with the 2025 tax season approaching fast, the stakes are enormous. If passed, Trump’s plan would not only mark one of the most dramatic tax overhauls in modern history—it would redefine the very incentives that drive American investment and wealth accumulation.

Continue Reading

International

UN committee urges Canada to repeal euthanasia for non-terminally ill patients

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has warned against Canada’s euthanasia program, urging the repeal of legislation that allows the killing of non-terminally ill individuals.

Canada’s euthanasia regime has become too radical even for the anti-life United Nations, who recently called on the nation to repeal its law allowing non-terminally ill patients to qualify for death through the state’s “Medical Assistance in Dying” program.

In closing remarks published March 21, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities argued that Canada should repeal its 2021 MAID expansion legislation that allowed those who are chronically ill but not terminally ill to be put to death by the state.

The committee said that Canada’s regime “establishes medically assisted dying for persons with disabilities based on negative, ableist perceptions of the quality and value of the life of persons with disabilities, including that ‘suffering’ is intrinsic to disability rather than the fact that inequality and discrimination cause and compound ‘suffering’ for persons with disabilities.”

It pointed out that “the concept of ‘choice’ creates a false dichotomy by setting up the premise that if persons with disabilities are suffering, it is valid for the State Party to enable their death.”

In Canada, euthanasia is divided into Track 1 and Track 2 requests. Track 1 requests deal with those whose death is allegedly imminent or foreseeable. Track 2 requests deal with those who are not terminally ill but have lost the will to live due to their having chronic health problems.

The UN committee took specific issue with Track 2 MAID, writing that it is “extremely concerned about the 2021 amendments to the State Party’s Criminal Code through Bill C-7 that expanded the eligibility criteria for obtaining Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID), known as ‘Track 2’ MAiD by removing the ‘foreseeable death’ criteria.”

The committee further recommended that Canada not euthanize its citizens for mental health reasons and abandon additional expansions of the program. Such an expansion is slated to come into effect in 2027.

It is worth noting that while Track 2 cases of MAID are indeed evil, so are Track 1 cases. The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that euthanasia is a grave evil tantamount to murder and must be rejected in all circumstances.

The UN committee’s criticism of Canada’s euthanasia regime comes after many have pointed out that the regime has spawned a culture of death and eugenics in the country, with the disabled and the poor often being those who request or who are even suggested to request death via Track 2 MAID.

“I felt like a problem that needed to be [gotten] rid of instead of a patient in need of treatment,” she said. “I don’t want to be asked if I want to die.”

Similarly, in May of last year, LifeSiteNews reported on a Canadian man who felt “completely traumatized” and violated that he was offered MAID “multiple times” instead of getting the proper care he needed while in the hospital.

The most recent reports show that MAID is the sixth highest cause of death in Canada. However, it was not listed as such in Statistics Canada’s top 10 leading causes of death from 2019 to 2022.

When asked why MIiD was left off the list, the agency said that it records the illnesses that led Canadians to choose to end their lives via euthanasia, not the actual cause of death, as the primary cause of death.

According to Health Canada, in 2022, 13,241 Canadians died by MAID lethal injections. This accounts for 4.1 percent of all deaths in the country for that year, a 31.2 percent increase from 2021.

Continue Reading

Trending

X