Opinion
Female athletes are turning against gender-confused men dominating women’s sports
From LifeSiteNews
If female athletes came together and demanded, with one voice, that female sports be protected, they would be pushing at an open door.
What happens when obvious truths about the differences between the sexes are denied by the elites at the behest of the transgender movement? And what happens when female athletes discover that their rights mean less than the newly invented “rights” of trans-identifying men to invade their spaces?
We’ve seen the answer to that play out over the past few years. This month alone, a trans-identifying male beat his female competitors at an Oregon track meet by a full six seconds, with the video of him zipping across the finish line sparking outrage; a trans-identifying marathon runner announced that he will be competing in the full set of six marathon majors in Boston in the male, female and “non-binary” categories; and courts in West Virginia and Ohio ruled that trans-identifying males can compete on female sports teams.
In the meantime, U.K. culture secretary Lucy Frazer called for a ban on males in female sports after meeting with representatives of a number of female sports leagues, writing:
In competitive sport, biology matters. And where male strength, size and body shape gives athletes an indisputable edge, this should not be ignored. By protecting the female category, they can keep women’s competitive sport safe and fair and keep the dream alive for the young girls who dream of one day being elite sportswomen.
She concluded, “We must get back to giving women a level playing field to compete. We need to give women a sporting chance.” Refreshingly, she called on sporting bodies to take an “unambiguous position” on the matter.
That, of course, is common sense. What makes Frazer’s statements significant is that she does not, like most politicians trying to thread the needle by accepting transgender ideology but rejecting the inevitable conclusions thereof, make multiple references to “transgender women.” She instead refers to keeping male bodies out of female sports, much to the outrage of trans activists, who insist that males who identify as females are females, and thus have female bodies, because they said so.
Over the past several years, it has fallen largely to the few female sportswomen who dared to risk the opprobrium of the LGBT movement to speak for the majority and point out the unfairness of allowing males to invade their sporting domains; now, an increasing number are willing to speak out. A recent study conducted by Manchester Metropolitan and Swansea universities, published April 17 in the Journal of Sports Sciences, indicates that the majority of female athletes want women’s sports to be categorized by sex rather than “gender identity.”
Fifty-eight percent of respondents in the study of elite female athletes wanted categorization by biological sex; that rose to 77 percent among those classified as “world-class athletes” who had competed in Olympic or world championship finals. Researchers surveyed 175 “national, elite and world class female athletes – current and retired – from a range of sports and countries” and included “26 world champions, 22 Olympians and six Paralympians,” making it the largest study of its kind conducted thus far. A BBC Sports study last month found that over 100 elite U.K. female athletes “would be uncomfortable” with trans-identifying males competing in the female categories of their sports.
According to the study, there is one exception to the rule: the “majority of athletes competing in non-Olympic sports believe changing category should be allowed, with the highest rate of 74% among those in ‘precision’ sports such as archery.”
In short, the higher female athletes climb, the more likely they are to object to trans-identifying males competing in their categories. Most of these athletes, of course, remain unnamed. Imagine if they came out together and demanded, with one voice, that female sports be protected. It would constitute a cultural sea change – and I suspect the moment is right for them to do so. If they pushed, they would be pushing at an open door.
By John Leake
With the exception of Viktor Orban, Europe’s so-called leaders have a learning disability of miraculous proportions.
While the Congress of Vienna (1815) seemed to inaugurate a new era of hope for peace in Europe, Europe’s leaders couldn’t resist the siren song of bloodyminded pigheadedness that drew them into the Crimean War (1853-1856) in which Britain and France thought it more sensible to side with the Ottoman Turks than with Russia over various religious and territorial disputes in the Black Sea that are now too tedious to recount.
The only redemptive feature of the Crimean War—at least on the British side—is that members of the ruling class that wanted the war were willing to serve on the front line of it. Lieutenant-General James Thomas Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardigan, was notorious for his aristocratic haughtiness and extravagance. He also achieved legendary status for leading the Charge of the Light Brigade during the Battle of Balaclava, immortalized in Tennyson’s poem.
Watching Cardigan charge directly into a Russian battery, the French commander, Pierre Bosquet remarked: “C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre: c’est de la folie (“It is magnificent, but it is not war: it is madness.”).
 |
At least Lord Cardigan fought his own war.
After the British and French backed the Ottomans against the Russians in the Crimean War, they backed the Russians against the Germans, Austrians, and Ottomans during the Great War of 1914-1918. When it came to drafting the Treaty of Versailles, the Allies were more interested in ascribing blame to the Germans than in making a lasting peace. This led to World War II, when British and the French backed the Russians once again against the Germans and the Austrians—this time with the Turks joining their side.
After World War II, the Americans thought it more important to create a lasting peace than to punish Germany again, so they chose the Marshall Plan instead of the punitive Morganthau Plan.
At the war’s conclusion, erstwhile allies U.S. and Russia, became mortal enemies in a Cold War in which they threatened each other with nuclear annihilation. At the conclusion of the Cold War, Washington decided to revert to the spirit of the Treaty of Versailles to kick Russia while it was down and to maintain a state of enmity with it instead of taking pains to incorporate it into the West.
In its great sagacity, the Trump administration has recognized that there is nothing to be gained for the American people by continuing the U.S. proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. Trump and his people recognize the reality that it would be far better to have a mutually respectful and beneficial relationship with Russia than to continue threatening it and maintaining a state of enmity with it.
Trump starkly contrasts with Europe’s so-called leaders, who wish to keep the Great Game pissing contest with Russia going. Like 15-year-old female rivals on a high school cheerleading squad, they find it more important to ascribe blame in the West’s longstanding conflict with Russia than to find a peaceful solution to it. All the phony expressions of solicitude for the people of Ukraine are pure humbug. Europe’s so-called leaders are perfectly happy to continue sending young Ukrainian men to their deaths and they will work hard to undermine Trump’s efforts to end the killing.
I would wager a large sum that not a single European head of state with the exception of Viktor Orban could—without referring to an Encyclopedia—provide an account of the various disputes, touchy matters of honor, and attributions of blame that were the casus belli of the Crimean War, the Franco-Prussian War, the First World War, or the Second World War. They are ignorant, childish brats who have learned nothing from European history.
I never thought I would say that President Trump must have the patience of a saint to suffer Europe’s irritating parcel of whiny, mercenary, and malevolent wimps.
Subscribe to FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse).
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
MxM News
Quick Hit:
President Donald Trump confirmed that a 25 percent tariff on all goods from Canada and Mexico will take effect next week. The move is intended to pressure the neighboring countries to take stronger measures against undocumented migration and fentanyl trafficking into the U.S. Despite discussions with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, Trump stated the tariffs will proceed as scheduled.
Key Details:
- The tariffs were initially set for February 4 but were delayed by 30 days following conversations with Trudeau and Sheinbaum.
- Trump emphasized the need for “reciprocal” tariffs, stating the U.S. has been “mistreated very badly” by many countries.
- Canada and Mexico have threatened to retaliate if the tariffs are implemented, which could impact over $900 billion in U.S. imports.
Diving Deeper:
President Donald Trump announced on Monday that his administration will move forward with imposing a 25 percent tariff on all Canadian and Mexican goods, effective next week. The decision aims to pressure the two countries into taking stronger actions to curb undocumented migration and fentanyl trafficking into the United States.
Speaking at a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron, Trump stated, “The tariffs are going forward on time, on schedule.” This declaration comes as the new deadline approaches on March 4, after an initial delay of 30 days from February 4, following phone conversations with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum.
During the press conference, Trump emphasized the broader issue of tariff reciprocity, claiming, “We’ve been mistreated very badly by many countries, not just Canada and Mexico.” He stressed the need for fairness in international trade, stating, “All we want is reciprocal. We want reciprocity. We want the same.”
Although Trump did not explicitly mention fentanyl or migration in his remarks, his statements apply additional pressure on Canada and Mexico to address his administration’s concerns. According to the White House, Trudeau informed Trump on Saturday that Canada has achieved a 90 percent reduction in fentanyl crossing the U.S. Northern Border and that Canada’s Border Czar will visit the U.S. next week for further discussions.
Together, Canada and Mexico account for more than $900 billion in U.S. imports, including vehicles, auto parts, and agricultural products. Both countries have indicated that they will retaliate if the tariffs are imposed. In a concession to inflation concerns, Trump noted that energy imports from Canada would face a lower tariff rate of 10 percent.
The move underscores Trump’s continued focus on securing U.S. borders and achieving trade reciprocity, while also setting the stage for potential trade conflicts with America’s closest trading partners.
U.S. tariffs or not, Canada needs to build new oil and gas pipeline space fast
Freedom Convoy leader says Trudeau gov’t has spent $5 million prosecuting her, fellow protester
Unlocking Canada’s energy potential
Premier Smith and Health Mininster LaGrange react to AHS allegations
Vatican reports ‘slight improvement’ in Pope Francis’ condition
Red Deer Freedom Convoy protestor Pat King given 3 months of house arrest
Lame duck prime minister shouldn’t announce taxpayer train boondoggle
-
International2 days ago
Vatican reports ‘slight improvement’ in Pope Francis’ condition
-
Addictions2 days agoDoes America’s ‘drug czar’ hold lessons for Canada?
-
conflict2 days agoTrump meets Macron at White House, says Ukraine war ending soon
-
Artificial Intelligence2 days agoApple bets big on Trump economy with historic $500 billion U.S. investment
-
Agriculture1 day agoHow USAID Assisted the Corporate Takeover of Ukrainian Agriculture
-
Business1 day agoBiden’s $20B grant to climate groups involved “self-dealing”
-
Business1 day agoTrump backs Musk’s ultimatum as ‘great’ idea, but some aren’t responding
-
Business19 hours agoThe NSA’s Secret Sex Chats