Opinion
Women’s sports are under siege by male participants, and no one seems to be stopping it
From LifeSiteNews
Sporting authorities continue to punish those who notice anything unfair while supporting the complete takeover of female leagues.
The entry of trans-identified males into female sports has led to some truly surreal scenes.
This past weekend, for example, the Miniseries of the Ultimate Pool Group was held in the U.K. As Reduxx reported: “On the women’s side, 64 entrants entered the competition, including two trans-identified males – Harriet Haynes, formerly Chris, and Lucy Smith. By the time of the semi-finals, Haynes and Smith ended up playing off against each other, meaning that there was an all male semi-final in a women’s sport.”
It isn’t just happening in pool, either. The Flying Bats FC, a soccer team based in Sydney, Australia, broke headlines around the world earlier this year after it was discovered that five of the women’s players…were actually trans-identifying males. Complaints were made by both club officials and parents, to no avail.
In August, the Daily Mail reported that “the team have capped off an undefeated season in the Women’s Premier League competition which they have won all 16 of their regular season matches while scoring 65 goals and conceding just four in the process by winning the grand final.”
Six of the victories “won” by the Flying Bats were due to other teams simply forfeiting games, including the two semi-final games, despite the fact that the sport’s governing bodies warned soccer clubs that they would be “punished if they forfeited their games against the Bats” over the trans-identifying players. In response to backlash, club president Jennifer Peden told the press:
As a club, the Flying Bats FC stand strongly for inclusion, and pride ourselves on safe, respectful and fair play, the promotion of a supportive community for LGBTQIA+ players, officials and supporters, and the significant physical, social and mental health benefits that participation in sport brings, especially to marginalised members of the LGBTQIA+ community. We are a club that values our cisgender and transgender players equally. We strongly support the Australian Human Rights Commission’s guidelines for the inclusion of transgender and gender diverse people in sport.
This despite the fact that the Flying Bats have been accused of injuring some female players. There isn’t much recourse for the female players who have seen their sport invaded by men; in the recent ruling Tickle v. Giggle, an Australian court announced that “sex is not confined to being a biological concept.” “Roxanne Tickle,” a man who identifies as a woman, had sued the “Giggle for Girls” app and founder Sall Grover over their female-only membership policy. The Federal Court of Australia ruled that Tickle was unlawfully discriminated against.
There are few women’s leagues not currently under siege by trans activists. A trans-identified man competed in a female Paralympics event. A man competed in the Canadian Powerlifting Union (although he was suspended for a while after threatening women who voiced disagreement with his participation). In Washington in July, teams with trans-identified males won all three of the top spots in a women’s bike race. Another male nabbed first prize in a female bicycle tournament – two years in a row. Female rugby players from Alberta, Canada, expressed fear when a male was permitted to join their team.
The Ultimate Pool Group competition, at least, turned out well. Harriet Haynes, the trans-identified male, ended up heading into the finals and playing against Welsh woman Kirsty-Lee Davies. At first, Haynes was winning, leading five frames to two. He only needed one more to win when what was described as a “phenomenal” comeback, Davies won four frames in a row and won the match.
The man lost; the woman won. Of course, she shouldn’t have had to play him in the first place, and who knows how the competition would have unfolded if men had not been permitted to play. But still, a victory.
Despite falling into disrepute in recent years, “follow the science” remains our best shot at getting at the truth of the physical sciences.
But science, if we are to place our trust in it, must be properly defined and understood; it is at its essence an ever-changing process, a relentless pursuit of truth that is never “settled,” and one that is unafraid to discard old hypotheses in the face of new evidence.
And it is in this light—in the unforgiving glare of honest science—that Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s three new legislative initiatives around gender policy are properly understood, notwithstanding the opprobrium they’ve attracted from critics.
Bill 26, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, proposes to prohibit the prescription of puberty blockers and cross-gender hormones for the treatment of gender dysphoria to youth aged 15 and under. It would allow minors aged 16 and 17 to begin puberty blockers and hormone therapies for gender “reassignment” and “affirmation” purposes only with parental, physician, and psychologist approval. The bill also prohibits health professionals from performing sex reassignment surgeries on minors.
Bill 27, the Education Amendment Act, seeks to enshrine parents’ rights to be notified if their kids change their names/pronouns at school, and it gives parents the right to “opt in” to what sort of gender and sex education their kids are exposed to in school.
And Bill 29, the Fairness and Safety in Sports Act, is designed to protect females in sports by ensuring that women and girls can compete in biological female-only divisions, while supporting the formation of co-ed opportunities to support transgender athletes.
Each of these initiatives is entirely reasonable, given what we know of the science underpinning “gender care,” and of the undeniable advantages that a male physique confers upon biological males competing in sports.
The notion that the trifecta of puberty blockers, cross-gender hormones, and revisionist surgery is a pathway to good health was a hypothesis initially devised by Dutch researchers, who were looking to ease the discomfort of transgender adults struggling with incongruence between their physical appearance and their gender identities. As a hypothesis, it was perhaps reasonable.
But as the UK’s Cass Review exposed in withering detail last spring, its premises were wholly unsupported by evidence, and its implementation has caused grievous harm for youth. As Finnish psychiatrist Riittakerttu Kaltiala, one of the architects of that country’s gender program, put it last year, “Gender affirming care is dangerous. I know, because I helped pioneer it.”
It’s no accident, then, that numerous European jurisdictions have pulled back from the “gender affirming care” pathway for youth, such as Sweden, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.
It makes perfect sense that Canadians should be cautious as well, and that parents should be apprised if their children are being exposed to these theories at school and informed if their kids are caught up in their premises.
Yet the Canadian medical establishment has remained curiously intransigent on this issue, continuing to insist that the drug-and-surgery-based gender-affirming care model is rooted in evidence.
Premier Smith was asked by a reporter last month whether decisions on these matters aren’t best left to discussions between doctors and their patients; to which she replied:
“I would say doctors aren’t always right.”
Which is rather an understatement, as anyone familiar with the opioid drug crisis can attest, or as anyone acquainted with the darker corners of medical history knows: the frontal lobotomy saga, the thalidomide catastrophe, and the “recovered memories of sexual abuse” scandal are just a few examples of where doctors didn’t “get it right.”
As physicians, we advocate strongly for self-regulation and for the principle that medical decisions are private matters between physicians and patients. But self-regulation isn’t infallible, and when it fails it can be very much in the interests of the public—and especially of patients—for others to intervene, whether they be journalists, lawyers, or political leaders.
The trans discussion shouldn’t be a partisan issue, although it certainly has become one in Canada. It’s worth noting that Britain’s freshly elected Labour Party chose to carry on with the cautious approach adopted by the preceding administration in light of the Cass Review.
Premier Smith’s new polices are eminently sensible and in line with the stance taken by our European colleagues. None of her initiatives are “anti-trans.” Instead, they are pro-child, pro-women, and pro-athlete, and it’s difficult to see how anyone can quibble with that.
Dr. J. Edward Les, MD, is a pediatrician in Calgary, senior fellow at the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy, and co-author of Teenagers, Children, and Gender Transition Policy: A Comparison of Transgender Medical Policy for Minors in Canada, the United States, and Europe.
Javier Milei in Argentina, Musk and Ramaswamy in the US.. What does DOGE in Canada look like?
Under their new(ish) president Javier Milei, Argentina cut deeply and painfully into their program spending to address a catastrophic economic crisis. And they seem to have enjoyed some early success. With Elon Musk now primed to play a similar role in the coming Trump administration in the U.S., the obvious question is: how might such an approach play out in Canada?
Sure. We’re not suffering from headaches on anything like the scale of Argentina’s – the debt we’ve run up so far isn’t in the same league as the long-term spending going on in South America. But ignoring the problems we do face can’t be an option. Given that the annual interest payments on our existing national debt are $11.7 billion (which equals seven percent of total expenditures), simply balancing the budget won’t be enough.
The underlying assumption powering the question is that we live in a world of constraints. There just isn’t enough money to buy everything we might want, so we need to both prioritize and become more efficient. It’s about figuring out what can no longer be justified – even if it does provide some value – and what’s just plain wasteful.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Some of this may seem obvious. After all, when there are First Nations reserves without clean water and millions of Canadians without access to primary care physicians, how can we justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars funding arts projects that virtually no one will ever discover, much less consume?
Apparently not everyone sees things that way. Large governments operate by reacting to political, social, and chaos-driven incentives. Sometimes those incentives lead to rational choices, and sometimes not. But mega-sized organizations tend to lack the self-awareness and capacity to easily change direction.
And some basic problems have no obvious solutions. As I’ve written, there’s a real possibility that all the money in the world won’t buy the doctors, nurses, and integrated systems we need. And “all the money in the world” is obviously not on the table. So the well-meaning bureaucrat might conclude that if you’re not going to completely solve the big problems, you might as well try to manage them while investing in other areas, too.
Still, I think it’s worth imagining how things might look if we could launch a comprehensive whole-of-government program review.
How Emergency Cuts Might Play Out
Imagine the federal government defaulted on its debt servicing payments and lost access to capital markets. That’s not such an unlikely scenario. There would suddenly be a lot less money available to spend, and some programs would have to be shut down. Protecting emergency and core services would require making fast – and smart – decisions.
We would need to take a long, hard look at this important enumeration of government expenditures. There probably wouldn’t be enough time to bridge the gap by looking for dozens of less-critical million-dollar programs. We would need to find some big-ticket items fast.
Our first step might be to pause or restructure larger ongoing payments, like projects funded through the Canada Infrastructure Bank (total annual budget: $3.45 billion). Private investors might pick up some of the slack, or some projects could simply go into hibernation. “Other interest costs” (total annual budget: $4.6 billion) could also be restructured.
Reducing equalization payments (total annual budget: $25.2 billion) and territorial financing (total budget: $5.2 billion) might also be necessary. This would, of course, spark parallel crises at lower levels of government. Similarly, grants to settle First Nations claims (total budget: $6 billion) managed by Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada would also be at least temporarily cut.
All that would be deeply painful and trigger long-term negative consequences.
But there’s a far better approach that could be just as effective and a whole lot less painful:
What an All-of-Government Review Might Discover
Planning ahead would allow you the luxury of targeting spending that – in some cases at least – wouldn’t even be missed. Think about programs that were announced five, ten, even thirty years ago, perhaps to satisfy some passing fad or political need. They might even have made sense decades ago when they were created…but that was decades ago when they were created.
Here’s how that’ll work. When you read through the program and transfer spending items on that government expenditures page (and there are around 1,200 of those items), the descriptions all point to goals that seem reasonable enough. But there are some important questions that should be asked about each of them:
- When did these programs begin?
- What specific activities do they involve?
- What have they accomplished over the past 12 months?
- Is their effectiveness trending up or down?
- Are they employing efficiency best-practices used in the private sector?
- Who’s tasked with monitoring changes?
- Where are their reports published?
To show you what I mean, here are some specific transfer or program line items and their descriptions:
Department of Employment and Social Development
- Workforce Development Agreements ($722 million)
- Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Transformation Initiative ($374 million)
- Payments to provinces, territories, municipalities, other public bodies, organizations, groups, communities, employers and individuals for the provision of training and/or work experience, the mobilization of community resources, and human resource planning and adjustment measures necessary for the efficient functioning of the Canadian labour market ($856 million)
Department of Industry
- Contributions under the Strategic Innovation Fund ($2.4 billion)
Department of Citizenship and Immigration
- Settlement Program ($1.13 billion)
Department of Indigenous Services
- Contributions to provide income support to on-reserve residents and Status Indians in the Yukon Territory ($1.05 billion). Note that, as of the 2021 Census, there were 9,150 individuals with North American Indigenous origins in Yukon. Assuming the line item is accurately described, that means the income support came to $114,987/person (not per household; per person).
Each one of those (and many, many others like them) could be case studies in operational efficiency and effectiveness. Or not. But there’s no way we could know that without serious research.
 |
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Invite your friends and earn rewards
Canadian farm producing consumable crickets lays off two-thirds of its employees
Liberals, NDP admit closed-door meetings took place in attempt to delay Canada’s next election
Rand Paul vows to target COVID-19 cover-up, Fauci as Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman
Kennedy Exposes the Swamp – Vivek and Musk Appointed to DOGE
-
COVID-192 days ago
Rand Paul vows to target COVID-19 cover-up, Fauci as Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman
-
MAiD1 day agoOntario tracked 428 cases of potentially illegal euthanasia but never notified police: report
-
Brownstone Institute1 day agoThe Revolution of 2024: A Rare Victory for Anti-Establishment Fury
-
National2 days agoTrudeau government to roll out another digital border crossing app by 2026
-
COVID-192 days agoPeer-reviewed study finds over 1,000% rise in cardiac deaths after COVID-19 shots
-
espionage1 day agoCommunist China interfered in BC election that saw far-left NDP re-elected by slim margin: report
-
Economy17 hours agoCOP 29 leaders demand over a $1 trillion a year in climate reparations from ‘wealthy’ nations. They don’t deserve a nickel.
-
International24 hours agoTrump sues New York Times for $10 billion over ‘false and defamatory statements’