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

Daily Caller

Suspect In Savage Knife Attack That Roiled Britain, Triggered Speech Crackdown Had Al-Qaida Manual At Home

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

By Nick Pope

The 18-year old suspect in a vicious July knife attack that left three young girls dead in the U.K. before triggering riots and a government crackdown on speech was in possession of an al-Qaida manual, according to Reuters.

Axel Rudakubana, who faces three murder charges and ten counts of attempted murder for the savage attack against a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport, now faces additional charges for possessing an al-Qaida training guide and producing ricin, a highly toxic substance, Reuters reported  on Tuesday. Large riots broke out across the country following the attack as rumors spread that the perpetrator was a migrant, a radical Muslim, or both, prompting the liberal British government to crack down on speech on the internet.

The riots that followed the vicious attack rocked the U.K. for several days, with outraged crowds surrounding mosques, burning cars and attacking a hotel known to host migrants, according to Reuters and The New York Times. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, a member of the Labor Party, quickly attributed the unrest to “far-right thuggery.”

U.K. government officials subsequently warned people to “think before [they] post” and announced  that law enforcement personnel would review social media platforms to look for speech deemed to be inflammatory and likely to spark violence.

Citizens were warned against “publishing or distributing material which is insulting or abusive which is intended to or likely to start racial hatred,” in the words of Stephen Parkinson, the director of public prosecutions of England and Wales. “So, if you retweet that, then you’re republishing that and then potentially you’re committing that offense [incitement to racial hatred].”

“We do have dedicated police officers who are scouring social media,” Parkinson added. “Their job is to look for this material, and then follow up with identification, arrests, and so forth.”

More than 1,000 people were arrested for their involvement in the riots, and more than 30 were arrested for social media posts that authorities claim fueled the rioting, according to the BBC. Of those arrested for social media activity, at least 17 faced criminal charges for their posts.

“These are telling details and are important for Rudakubana’s trial,” British conservative pundit Douglas Murray wrote of the new revelations about the materials in the suspect’s possession. “But the authorities must have known this months ago – indeed, within hours of getting into Rudakubana’s house – meaning that people who were heavily criticized for spreading ‘fake news’ about the potential motive of the attacker now turn out to have said something that seems likely to have been true.”

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Joe Rogan Responds To YouTube Censorship of Trump Interview

Published on

From Reclaim The Net

By

Joe Rogan has accused YouTube of making it difficult for users to find his recent interview with former President Donald Trump, saying that the platform initially only displayed short clips from mainstream media instead of the full episode. Rogan sarcastically remarked on YouTube’s actions, saying, “I’m sure it was a mistake at YouTube where you couldn’t search for it. Yeah. I’m sure it was a mistake. It’s just a mistake.”

In episode 2200, Rogan explained that even though his team contacted YouTube multiple times, the episode remained difficult to find. X CEO Elon Musk intervened, contacting Spotify CEO Daniel Ek about the issue. (Spotify exclusively licenses The Joe Rogan Experience but allows the show on third-party platforms like YouTube.)

Watch the video clip here.

Rogan noted the explosive viewership once the content was available, with the episode racking up “six and a half million views on mine and eight plus million on his.”

Emphasizing the episode’s broad reach, Rogan expressed frustration with the initial suppression, stating, “You can’t suppress shit. It doesn’t work. This is the internet. This is 2024. People are going to realize what you’re doing.” He pointed to the significance of this episode’s reach, asking, “If one show has 36 million downloads in two days, like that’s not trending? Like what’s trending for you? Mr. Beast?”

Describing the power of YouTube’s algorithmic influence, Rogan claimed the algorithm worked against the interview’s visibility, only showing clips instead of the full conversation. According to him, when YouTube initially fixed the issue, users had to enter highly specific keywords, like “Joe Rogan Trump interview,” to find the episode.

Rogan argued that YouTube’s gatekeeping reflected an ideological stance, remarking, “They hate it because ideologically they’re opposed to the idea of him being more popular.” He suggested that major tech platforms, such as YouTube and Facebook, which hold significant influence, often push agendas that favor specific narratives, stating, “They didn’t like that this one was slipping away. And so they did something.”

In a telling moment, Rogan noted the impact of the initial suppression, explaining how “the interactions…dropped off a cliff because people couldn’t find it.” He claimed that this caused viewers either to give up or settle for short clips, leading to a dip in views before the episode gained traction on Spotify and X.

 

Continue Reading

Trending

X