In Defense of the Status Quo

The still-salient case for a biologically-based women's category in elite sport.

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

As the long history of sex testing in elite sport reflects, sex segregation has been the design from the beginning. The point has always been to exclude male-bodied athletes from women's events so that females could be featured despite their relative physical disadvantages. Title IX represents a modern version of this original design, requiring schools receiving federal funds to establish separate women's teams and to set aside more or less equal funding, facilities, coaches, and competitive opportunities for their female student-athletes.

The goals of elite sport today remain consistent: to ensure the same number of spots in finals and on podiums for females as for males, both as an end unto itself and as an expressive vehicle to empower girls and women in society more generally. An identity-based eligibility standard for women's sport would do different work for those whose gender identity doesn't match their biology, but it would be category defeating.

Here's a summary of the value the women's category provides to individuals and to society:

  • Individual goods include the physical, developmental, psychological, reputational, and financial rewards that result from competing and winning at the elite level. The long-term benefits are less well known but important. Per Donna de Varona of the Women's Sports Foundation and Beth Brooke-Marciniak of Ernst & Young: "Girls who play sport stay in school longer, suffer fewer health problems, enter the labor force at higher rates, and are more likely to land better jobs. They are also more likely to lead. EY research shows stunningly that 94% percent of women C-Suite executives today played sport, and over half played at a university level."
  • Stakeholder goods include the political, economic, and psychological benefits that flow from close association with individual winners. Here are just a few of the women whose achievements are recognized as having produced important stakeholder value. If the category were not defined on the basis of sex, we would not know their names: Serena Williams. Aly Raisman. Brandi Chastain. Simone Manuel. Katie Ledecky. Michelle Carter. Dana Vollmer. Ibtihaj Mohammed.
  • Societal goods include, from Sex in Sport, "'challenging rigid gender norms' so that girls and women gain "'opportunities to become supported, educated and empowered.'" Per de Varona and Brooke-Marciniak, "[I]nvestment in girls and sport has significant [economic] development payoffs and contributes to economic growth overall. Sport empowers women and contributes to gender equality globally."

Defining the category on the basis of sex is necessary to the attainment of these goods. As detailed in yesterday's post, "Any other option that has males and females competing together works mainly to highlight, isolate, and display male bodies and hierarchies." And from the NYT: "This may sound like hyperbole but it isn't. In competitive sport, winning and room at the top are what ultimately matter, so relative numbers are irrelevant. It doesn't matter that there are 100 females and three males in a girls' race if the three males win spots in the final or on the podium because they are males."

It is precisely because success in the elite sport space is tied to our distinct reproductive biology that, in the absence of a compromise, there is no reconciling the rights of females and the interests of society in this version of women's sport with the interests of male-bodied athletes who identify as women and their constituencies. We have to choose: Do we continue to support women's sport as a protected category, with or without a conditional right of entry for male-bodied athletes who identify as female? Or, do we abandon that project in favor of the different one that is recognizing individuals based exclusively on their gender identity?

I don't see a compelling argument for abandoning the women's category in its current form.

Doing so would have real costs—see above—which I doubt could be outweighed by the benefits thus far articulated by the other side. The most important or weighty of these benefits include respect for individual autonomy, and enhanced empathy for and equal treatment of historically marginalized people. But to me, they apply equally to females. And I don't find it useful to compete over which of us has suffered most from our respective marginalizations.

The category is also clearly lawful. Equal protection doctrine allows, and in some cases encourages, anti-subordination measures designed to empower females based on inherent (sex) differences. See RBG in VMI and also Title IX. In the human rights space, this is through the UN Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women. Although there is a lot of important advocacy around developing a comparable convention for people who are intersex and transgender, there are as yet no such protections on the books. There is certainly no preemptive right to self-identify into lawfully established set asides for females. The ubiquitous "rights talk" on social media and in the popular press is, to date, just that.

Early on, the loudest arguments in support of an identity-based category came from intersex advocates who seek to convince their audience that the science around the biology of sex is the faulty product of medical imperialism and the patriarchy; that sex is impossible to define; that those who disagree with this conclusion are ignorant; and that classifying people based on the secondary sex characteristics that develop from male T levels is racist and/or inappropriately privileges a particular view of femininity. Without going too far down the rabbit hole, I tried to address these points in Sex in Sport, with a focus on the harm that deconstructing sex to the point of nonexistence would cause for females.

Their Alice in Wonderland quality is also why I appreciate Rachel McKinnon. She is refreshingly smart about sport and also honest about science. Because of this, we're now finally in a position to debate the right issues. Here she is in USA Today, making the argument the ACLU has also adopted:

We cannot have a woman legally recognized as a trans woman in society, and not be recognized that way in sport. Focusing on performance advantage is largely irrelevant because this is a rights issue. We shouldn't be worried about trans people taking over the Olympics. We should be worried about their fairness and human rights instead.

I'll close out today with these three brief reactions:

First, as I note above, the claim that the integrity of sport is subordinate to the rights of transwomen to be classified as they identify assumes rights not yet established, and doesn't otherwise resolve the conflict since it's also a rights issue for females.

Second, sport already recognizes transwomen as women and includes them in competition as such, so long as they don't enter as superwomen. (More on this tomorrow.) This qualification isn't wrong a priori, either legally or logically, i.e., transwomen aren't similarly situated to biological females in the ways that matter to the category, and sport isn't the only space where—regardless of how we identify—our reproductive biology is always relevant. See Joanna Harper's terrific work on athletic gender.

And then, welcome to my world. While we've made lots of progress towards women's equality over the last century, the notion that we might walk this earth—go for a job interview, a run in the forest, or onto the streets at night—without people taking our reproductive sex into account is foreign to every female I know. I welcome all transwomen to the club who want in, and it doesn't bother me that they might also be inconvenienced from time to time by having their reproductive biology considered, especially when it actually matters.

Third, describing performance advantage as "largely irrelevant" subordinates the integrity of sport and its legitimate, multifaceted goals to those of McKinnon's own cause, assuming the answer to what is clearly a contested issue. It also ignores that the women's category wouldn't exist as a space for transwomen to enter were it not for the sex-linked advantages males have over females. If this rationale is rejected, I don't see how or why the category survives.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

148 responses to “In Defense of the Status Quo

  1. Look, even if you honestly think men have no rights women are bound to respect, even if “What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine, too.” feminism is where you’re coming from, just from a tactical standpoint, wouldn’t it be smart to generalize your cause, to defend not just women’s sports, but men’s sports, too?

    Throwing away half your potential allies right at the start of the fight is pretty stupid.

    Are there no reasons you can see why men might get their own sporting events? Are sex segregated sporting events ONLY for women’s benefit, and never men’s?

    1. My thinking has generally been that (1) we want best-of-everyone competitions, and (2) we might also want competitions for the best of some group that can’t compete effectively in #1 because of some significant constraints that are outside their power to change. That’s why, for instance, we have (to be sure, generally on a casual, amateur level) basketball leagues and under-6-foot basketball leagues, but don’t have leagues expressly designated as over-6-foot basketball leagues. Likewise, there are chess tournaments and there are youth chess tournaments, but I don’t know of any chess tournaments that require players to be adults — we want to protect 15-year-olds from 30-year-old competitors, but we don’t want to protect 30-year-olds from 15-year-old competitors. The all-players chess leagues will be dominated by adults, of course, but we don’t need special adults-only rules for them.

      (continued in next comment)

      1. (continuing)

        Why wouldn’t the same be true for sex and sports, for those sports in which men have a decided advantage? If a woman is good enough to get a spot on the “men’s” basketball team, whether in the NBA, college, or high school, I don’t see why she should be excluded — it’s just that in practice, this will almost never happen. We call the teams the men’s basketball teams, but they are basically just basketball teams for the best players, which will necessarily be dominated by men. There’s no need to formally limit them to men, and if the rare woman is so good that she can beat out the male competitors for a spot (like the rare 15-year-old is so good that he can beat out the adult competitors at a chess tournament), what basis do we have for excluding her?

        So the rationale of having women’s-only teams, it seems to me, doesn’t carry over for having formally men’s-only teams (as opposed to best-of-everyone teams that end up being entirely male), just as the rationale for children-only teams doesn’t carry over for formally adults-only teams, and the rationale for short-player teams doesn’t carry over for formally tall-player teams. What am I missing here?

        (Note that I’m not speaking here of limitations aimed at physically protecting certain participants who might be injured by playing against stronger participants, such as if a 12-year-old, however brilliant as a quarterback, wanted to play in the NFL [or so I hypothesize on that score]; that’s a separate matter.)

        1. The consequence is then the loss of the male-only space. Where comradeship can be fostered in a uniquely male way. Where being occasionally loud and crude and rough is okay.

          So we end up with the female space… and the space that we have to share with females.

          1. The sexist desire to forcibly protect women from male “coarseness” certainly makes it more difficult for the sexes to interact. Who wants to hang out with someone who can get you punished for offending them?

            1. So the male-only space must be eradicated. There can only be coed and women-only?

            2. Hmmmm. Maybe its’s about the power.

              Some feminists not so long ago were against some anti-harassment rules. Not repeated attempts to make people feel bad, but rather stuff like overhearing a dirty joke.

              They felt it wss turning the male to female relationship, in the workplace, into male to child, by considering women as fragile antebellum belles ready to collapse with psychological damage.

          2. Pete,

            The NBA doesn’t exist to foster comradeship in a uniquely male way. We watch NFL games, not their locker room. If males want to enjoy a space free from women, why does that need to be coupled with a professional sports league? NFL players can join male-only private clubs.

            1. Chemistry on any team is very important to winning. The chemistry for an all male team, in whatever competition, is very different than a mixed gender team.

              1. And if an NBA owner thinks chemistry will be improved by having a male-only team, they are entitled to do that. But why would that be an argument against allowing other NBA teams to trade all male chemistry for mixed gender chemistry, if they think it will give them a comparative advantage?

                1. Not sure about sports teams but Marine combat veterans say the military should be able to have male-only units for reasons like “chemistry.” Definitely makes sense to me to prioritize their combat effectiveness over social justice experiments and agendas.

                  As for the NBA, I don’t see why teams wouldn’t have the right to keep it male only or mixed gender, whether they think either will give them a comparative advantage or not, even if it’s just for a political agenda.

                  1. “Definitely makes sense to me to prioritize their combat effectiveness over social justice experiments and agendas.”

                    Because some “Marine combat veterans” said so? They have to be right. Did you think desegregating the military was a mistake, because of chemistry concerns between black and white soldiers?

              2. Pete,
                Is it? This argument seems pretty close to the racist argument we got half a century ago: “The chemistry for an all-white team is very different from the (lack of) chemistry where we’re forced to play with black people on our team.” (And it was also made in the arguments against desegregating the military.) Was this argument factually true? Yeah, I’m sure it was for a huge number of people. But we, as a society, said, “We get your desire to team up with people who have your same skin color. But you can take your desire and stuff it.”

                1. So there are only two modes available, female only or coed? Men have no right to all male organizations?

                  1. You’re making this way too complicated. Men have rights to make all male organizations. Nobody is saying they shouldn’t. The question is whether women’s sports should be able to prevent men from joining. The reason they want to do this is because men’s participation will destroy the sport, because of gender differences between men and women, namely that men enjoy an on average physical advantage over women. But it isn’t the case that women being allowed to join the NFL, will quickly make the NFL an all-women organization. And because the NFL isn’t a male fraternity, rather it’s just a sports league, there aren’t good competitive reasons to keep women out.

          3. Yeah, you would have a point if there was a woman ever anywhere that could compete against men in football, basketball, soccer, tennis, swimming, track…

            No, wait. You don’t have a point even then.

            The mere theoretical possibility that someday some woman might be good enough to join one of these sports on an equal basis with men does not prevent you from male bonding. I struggle to imagine what you are even thinking.

            But then I also struggle to imagine what athletes with male bodies that think they should be allowed to compete on female teams because of the gender they associate with are thinking.

            The world is full of strange and frankly silly people.

        2. “Why wouldn’t the same be true for sex and sports, for those sports in which men have a decided advantage?”

          You certainly could do that, but you would eliminate any illusion of parity between men’s and women’s sports. You would have the “real” basketball team, and the inferior women’s basketball team, with the best women playing on the real team. And of course, it would be difficult to defend a rule that keeps less competent men off the women’s team, since better women are allowed to joint the mens team.

          I can’t imagine many women going along with such an arrangement.

          1. “You would have the “real” basketball team, and the inferior women’s basketball team, with the best women playing on the real team.”

            Everyone agrees that’s what we have today. Allowing women into the NBA might make the WNBA’s quality suffer, but so what? Is the WNBA entitled to prevent women from participating in other leagues?

            “…it would be difficult to defend a rule that keeps less competent men off the women’s team…”

            No it wouldn’t. You’d just defend the status quo.

            1. “Everyone agrees that’s what we have today. Allowing women into the NBA might make the WNBA’s quality suffer, but so what? Is the WNBA entitled to prevent women from participating in other leagues?”

              Everybody agrees? You saw what they did to John McEnroe, right?

              Hey, I’m fine with letting women play in the NBA, NFL, etc. I’m just speculating that the women’s sports folks might have a problem with it. Do you think that, say, Serena Williams wants there to be a tennis league, and then a women’s tennis league?

              1. “Everybody agrees? You saw what they did to John McEnroe, right?”

                I’m not sure I know what you’re talking about. Is this re: his Serena comments? What is it you think people did to him? The Williams have already conceded they aren’t as good as men.

                “Do you think that, say, Serena Williams wants there to be a tennis league, and then a women’s tennis league?”

                I don’t know. Maybe? She (and her sister) already play mixed doubles, and have played scrimmages against men. But assuming she was opposed to letting other women compete in men’s tennis, who cares what she thinks?

                1. “What is it you think people did to him? The Williams have already conceded they aren’t as good as men.”

                  They gave him alot of flack for saying that Serena was the best female tennis player, instead of the best tennis player. And I don’t think that they have conceded that they are not as good as men.

                  1. Twelve,

                    Here is what Serena said:

                    “If I were to play Andy Murray, I would lose 6?0, 6?0, in 5 to 6 minutes . . .I wouldn’t do Billie Jean any justice, so Andy, stop it. I’m not gonna let you kill me.”

                    Here is what Billy Jean King, of the famous battle of the sexes tennis match, said:

                    It wouldn’t be the same,” King tells The Daily Beast. “I mean, Bobby was a lot older than I was. The women have never said we’re better than the men, and yet, the men always come back to us, ‘Oh, you think you’re as good or better.’ No, not at all.”

                    King says that some have been trying to get Williams and American legend John McEnroe to play for the last decade. McEnroe’s been eager to play. “Men have androgens that we don’t have,” she says. “You’re stronger, you’re faster?we don’t argue that at all. So to be honest, Serena against Andy Murray would not work. He would win. And he knows it. She knows it.”

            2. “Everyone agrees that’s what we have today.”

              I’m not sure I agree. For example, men’s and women’s Olympic champions are generally viewed as co-equal in status. And, certainly, both kinds are normally counted in the country-v-country medal race.

              1. “I’m not sure I agree. For example, men’s and women’s Olympic champions are generally viewed as co-equal in status.”

                Whatever you mean by “co-equal”, nobody believes that Florence Griffith-Joyner’s 100M olympic record is faster than Usain Bolt’s. How they’re counted for medal purposes is neither here nor there. Curling counts the same as all the other sports, but nobody would argue that curling is equal to hockey.

                1. > nobody believes that Florence Griffith-Joyner’s 100M olympic record is faster than Usain Bolt’s.

                  Right … but everyone still thought FloJo was a genuine “Olympic Gold Medalist.” We didn’t discount her achievement as though it were just a handicap league (e.g., the u-21 champion).

                  1. “…but everyone still thought FloJo was a genuine “Olympic Gold Medalist.””

                    Right, because she was. I can’t tell what point you’re making.

                2. The point isn’t that they’re equal in their physical performance, but that they’re “equal” in the sense of both having achieved the peak of what their own sex is capable of.

                  We have separate male and female competitions, and celebrate the winners of both, because men and women are different enough that if we conjoined them, we’d only be celebrating the male accomplishments in most sports, and the women’s efforts are worth admiring, too.

            3. Would the WNBA be allowed to prevent men who identify as women from participating?

              1. The WNBA has reasons to prevent men from playing in it that don’t apply to the NBA, for the reasons previously stated by OP. Men participating in the WNBA would quickly destroy it. Women participating in the NBA would have little effect on the end product.

            4. “Allowing women into the NBA might make the WNBA’s quality suffer’

              They are allowed presently, there is no rule that says they cannot be signed and play.

              They simply could not qualify.

          2. “best women playing on the real team”

            Playing? Maybe sitting on the bench.

            At every level post puberty, the best woman is inferior to the worst man.

            Not a single woman in the WNBA could make a D1 college basketball team on the merits, let alone a NBA team.

        3. I think your perspective on this would be quire reasonable under a different legal environment. You could have pure merit HS wrestling teams, for instance, and the fact that virtually every one of them ended up all male due to the women not making the cut would be just the way things were.

          But, we don’t live in that legal environment, and you know it.

          You’d have the pure merit HS wrestling team, and it would in practice be all male, and then the legal challenges would begin, and the only way to fend them off would be to somehow arrange for women to make the cut anyway. And so the HS wrestling team would cease being pure merit, (Though the pretense that it still was would be retained.) and there would be a substantial chance that the very rules of the sport would be altered in an effort to make the women more competitive.

          You see this in hiring: In theory, the law requires only that hiring ignore race and sex. In practice, you must maintain something of a quota system or bear the cost of rebutting the assumption that you’re discriminating.

          1. “You’d have the pure merit HS wrestling team, and it would in practice be all male…”

            We have pure merit HS wrestling teams in the United States, today, that have women on them. In over a dozen states. Wrestling qualifications are by weight-class in those states, not gender.

            1. And how many of those teams have women on them, that beat the mean on their own teams, for slots upcoming competitions (which is how such things are decided)?

              What I see, is that the high school weight categories of 98lbs, 115lbs, 125lbs, and sometimes the 130lbs weight classes are usually empty of boys/men (categories vary by state, but they are roughly similar) after sophomore year. I can see these slots filled by women.

              1. Here are the results for all women wrestlers who have participated at Colorado state HS wrestling tournaments.

                1. Nice item. It makes you point.

                  I think it also tends to make a weaker version of mad_kalak’s point, given that the best ever finishes are 4th and 5th, and those in the 106-pound weight class.

          2. I think your perspective on this would be quire reasonable under a different legal environment. You could have pure merit HS wrestling teams, for instance, and the fact that virtually every one of them ended up all male due to the women not making the cut would be just the way things were.

            But, we don’t live in that legal environment, and you know it.

            Not sure what country you live in, but we here in the United States actually do live in this legal environment, and have for decades.

        4. Instead, with openly women only, AND men only, both sets of sports can be internally merit based, instead of being forced to reject merit in favor of a quota system.

          But, also, the naked, “What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine, too.” approach rankles. She really is driving off half the support she might get, by openly declaring that only women get their own spaces, and not men.

        5. “So the rationale of having women’s-only teams, it seems to me, doesn’t carry over for having formally men’s-only teams (as opposed to best-of-everyone teams that end up being entirely male), just as the rationale for children-only teams doesn’t carry over for formally adults-only teams, and the rationale for short-player teams doesn’t carry over for formally tall-player teams. What am I missing here?”

          In the context of Professor Coleman’s postings this week, this is a distinction without a difference. Whether you call the men’s team a “men’s team” or the “open team” (or something like it denoting that the best X number of players will be selected) is irrelevant. In practice, that will always be a men-only team.

          There will never be a female basketball player, soccer player, golfer, tennis player, swimmer, etc. who could make the “open” team. This is true at the high school, college, international, and professional levels.

          An above-average high school boys basketball team from a large-school division in, say, Texas, would mop the floor with the best WNBA team in the league. The same is true for any other team sport. The gap in some individual sports may be smaller. But I have no problem saying that even the best female swimmers, golfers, tennis players, etc., have no chance of competing against even marginal professional males.

          So, should we let women (or girls) try out for men’s (or boys’) teams? Perhaps. But it would be a waste of time.

        6. And those examples of Mr. volokh are all perfectly sensible carve outs for groups of people who are inherently not competitive in the “open” category.
          That is until certain immutable categories are swapped out for others. I notice with some frequency in college basketball games that of the 10 players on the field, none are white or Asian. Clearly in a strictly meritocratic selection for the highest level of college play whites and asians must be inherently inferior as a group. Thus, what would you think of a college setting up a whites only league to allow inclusion of that group to gain the inherent benefits of college varsity sport.

    2. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

      click here ======?? http://www.payshd.com

  2. Women sports are the only thing more useless than sports.

    1. The only reason we should talk about sports is to talk about how we can take away all the cronyism from stadiums, outside of it,who cares, it is a useless waste of time.

      1. I’ll take a bite here at your silly absolutism. What about physical fitness? Running on the treadmill is boring, but playing soccer is kinda fun. Many people are physically fit due to the comradery that comes only with sports.

        p.s. …It does built character too.

        1. “…but playing soccer is kinda fun.” Nope, and even if it was, why should my tax money go to other people playing it.

          “Many people are physically fit due to the comradery that comes only with sports.” Nope, I saw studies say that athletes tend to cheat more.

          “p.s. …It does built character too.” See the above.

          1. Sounds to me like someone got beat up by the jocks one time too many…

        2. https:// www . nytimes . com / 1971 / 12 / 12 / archives / study – finds – cheating – abounds -in – sports – study -cheating – big – in -sports . html

        3. God, was this bs somethig your physical education teacher told you? XD

          1. My gym teachers were mostly idiots. You said “sports”, which now you’re conflating sports with sports stadiums; separate issues. Even without the problems with bit city stadiums, your tax dollars are paying for basketball hoops and baseball diamonds for kid to play at a local park. You have a problem with amateur leagues and parks too? Do you like fat kids with diabetes? Are you a fatty yourself?

            One can be a cheater in sports, and be fit due to sports at the same time, or you can be an upright person and be a fat slacker, however, it’s remarkably silly to think that physical fitness isn’t a benefit of sports when modern medicine is quite clear that moderate levels of exercise, the kind you get from soccer or even ultimate frisbee, provide health benefits.

            So that article is from 1971…anything more recent? Looks like you are really, really stretching here. I will concede that the competitive spirit can bring out the Lance Armstrong in some people, but you really have to show that the problem is more widespread than with some 1971 article that you don’t even know how to link properly too.

            Does sports build character? Only a loser who never learned how to train and win at something would say it doesn’t.

            1. mad_kalak|3.13.19 @ 9:41AM|#

              “…it’s remarkably silly to think that physical fitness isn’t a benefit of sports.”

              I think the best distinguishing characteristic of what makes something a sport rather than a game is that, with a sport, morbid obesity aside, and all other things being equal, the better one’s overall physical condition, the better one’s performance.

  3. I was with ya, until this sentence: “While we’ve made lots of progress towards women’s equality over the last century, the notion that we might walk this earth?go for a job interview, a run in the forest, or onto the streets at night?without people taking our reproductive sex into account is foreign to every female I know.”

    Everyone should always their their own personal safety into account, and men are in danger of violent crime as well. And men, yes, have to worry that their behavior will be misinterpreted, so they have to worry about their appearance and the way they talk and act as well. Women only have the slightest more concern in these two things because they are physically weaker than an average man, but the average man is no better off in a 2 on 1 situation, and because women have determined that men must make the first move in instigating sexual interplay. Yes, if a women were open to the idea that they could ask for phone numbers, then this blown way out of proportion idea that women have to be worried about giving off the wrong impression, would fall away. Fact is, women love the idea that men give them sexual attention, they just want a high status man to be the one to make the first move.

    And men and women are not, and never will be, equal. Which is ironic that I have to say this, because the author just spent a series of blog posts indicating that perfectly clearly.

    1. Men and women will never be the same. Two vectors, equal in magnitude, different in direction. Complementary, not identical.

    2. When the grievance industry likes to complain about the woes of women in public it makes me sort of laugh. They wanted equality and now get the “downside” of it. Men have always faced these kinds of challenges, such as personal security when out in public. They just deal with it by taking measures to reduce risk and protect themselves.

      I imagine that if you interviewed 100 muggers a small minority would say they prey solely on women probably because snatching a purse is somewhat easier then say trying to get a wallet out of a man’s pocket, but most are “equal opportunity”. Acts of unsolicited violence usually know no gender, race, religious belief. They are usually crimes of opportunity in that the victim was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Women are victims of such crimes, not because they are women, but because they chose to enter the public in the same manner which was reserved mostly for men up until say the last 40-50 years.

    3. I was with ya, until this sentence: “While we’ve made lots of progress towards women’s equality over the last century, the notion that we might walk this earth?go for a job interview, a run in the forest, or onto the streets at night?without people taking our reproductive sex into account is foreign to every female I know.”

      I agree…it’s an unrealistic attitude…at least insofar as “a run in the forest, or onto the streets at night”. It’s entirely reasonable to expect equal treatment in an employment situation.

      But there’s an aspect to this that ignores the concept of “attraction”. Does existing feminist ideology dictate that one should not comment on another’s appearance under almost all circumstances? Is the concept to try to phase out attraction altogether? Define beauty as an archaic concept?

      And it also ignores the fact that humans are frequently emotional and impulsive creatures driven by feelings like sexual desire. that doesn’t excuse force. And it certainly doesn’t excuse unequal treatment under the law. But in the wild? What does it really mean to try to make catcalls a thing of the past?

      1. Feminism is schizophrenic when it comes to sexual attraction and appropriate behavior. One thing for certain, though, is that whatever the context, the default is that, men are responsible for anything that goes wrong, and for fixing and defects in the current system of norms. Of course, feminism as an ideology cannot create a coherent, rational way ahead for gender relations for how to respond to sexual attraction, so what they propose is all contextual to the woman’s benefit.

        1. Is there any scene expressing less self-awareness than a couple of fucking dudes complaining about feminists on a libertarian blog?

          1. Maybe, just maybe, you should be self aware enough to see that the OP was about sex and gender and feminism, and we were responding to the words of that post and critiquing them.

            1. Maybe I’m just being unfair to you like every women you’ve never met.

              1. “Maybe I’m just being unfair to you like every women you’ve never met.”

                Hey now. Your mom was more than fair to me.

              2. NToJ, women have been *very* fair to me, in fact I enjoy the company of many fair women all the time.

  4. On a blog dedicated to the principle of radical individual liberty, in a country which just trashed 3000 years of human tradition on the definition of marriage: you are arguing in favor of “the status quo”, because: feelz?

    1. Because “What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine, too.” She’s not arguing for the status quo, she’s arguing for keeping the part of it that favors her sex, and to Hell with the rest of it.

  5. Of course men and women are different. We have known that since the beginning of time. It has just been in the last 40-50 years that the Left, for whatever reason, has been trying to convince us that is not the case.

    “trans-women” whatever that means are just men who have had their genitals mutilated and have flooded their bodies with artificial hormones. They are still men. They still have the muscle mass of men, the physical endurance of men, the metabolism of men, and usually a superior height/weight ratio over women. Slicing off little johny and pumping estrogen into them does not counteract base biological nature.

    The reason why we have men’s sports and women’s sports is because of these base biological differences. It is actually dangerous to have women competing with men in some sports, especially when there is physical contact. In cases where there isn’t physical contact it is simply unfair to demand a woman compete at the same level as a man. Frankly an out of shape couch potato that is a man can beat a lot of gym going women in feats of strength, dexterity, and constitution.

    This used to be so engrained in “common sense” it didn’t even have to be mentioned, but I guess that is not the case today.

    1. Fun fact: the world’s strongest female powerlifter, Becca Swanson, weighed in at 250lbs and deadlifted 683lb. The world’s strongest male powerlifter, Eddie Hall, weighed in at 410lbs and deadlifted 1,102lb.

      1. Once was dating a woman who was a self-described “fitness nut”. She would spend probably 15-20 hours working out a week. But, she would still ask me to carry heavy things, such a suitcases, trash, dog food, etc., because she would struggle with them (I’m in decent shape, but hardly a gym rat). Even when I am on a plane solo if there is a woman passenger in my vicinity with a heavier carryon they will usually request me (or another man) help them with their bag. Even had some flight attendants ask me for assistance (this is also how I found out if they are hurt placing bags of passengers into the overhead it counts as some type of limited disability because placing luggage into overhead bins is not in their detailed job description). I’m sure this “phenomena” confuses feminists all over the world, that is until that female feminist can’t get her bag into the overhead…

        1. I just wish I understood how “women are different” came across as “women are inferior” to these feminists. I think they’ve isolated themselves so much from men that they’ve forgotten how we act.

          Another very random tangent, but Card Sharks needs to make a comeback. I watched that game show for the first time and I’m fascinated by it because all the questions and discussions pertain to surveys about understanding between the sexes. The male and female contestant will be asked questions such as “We asked 100 women in our studio audience if they would join a sheik’s harem for 5 years for a million dollars, how many do you think said yes?” and the back and forth banter really showed how women and men had a much different understanding of one another in 1978 than they do today. It was especially funny to see how shocked the women were when male contestants understood women (on average) better than they themselves did.

          1. What happened was radical feminism in the 60’s and 70’s. The idea was that in order for women to be equal to men they had to act, perform, and mimic everything that was masculine. At the base core this makes sense. If you want to be something then you need to act like it or become it. But when it comes to men/women that is like a 5’2″ man saying he is going to become a star basketball player just like the guy who is 6’5″. It just ain’t gonna work out that way.

            In order to get women to sign up for the radical feminist proposal they had to cast being feminine as inferior or weak. Again, this makes sense. Who wants to sign up for being weak? But the whole “to be like a man, you have to act like a man” thing didn’t work out so well in practice. But, the radical feminists don’t have anything else left so they are just “all in” now which is why they keep on grinding the axe the same way they always have.

            1. Feminism really started going wrong when the lesbians managed to take over leadership, resulting in that “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” idiocy. Of course a lesbian would think that.

            2. The idea was that in order for women to be equal to men they had to act, perform, and mimic everything that was masculine.

              Except, of course, they don’t.

              Men die in droves on the job compared to women.

            3. Jimmy the Dane: “But when it comes to men/women that is like a 5’2″ man saying he is going to become a star basketball player”

              What if she’s 5’3″?

              Muggsy Bogues. 5′ 3″, 14 year NBA career. Beloved in Charlotte.

              (of course the right answer is that she couldn’t play like Muggsy. But neither could the 5′ 3″ white dude)

    2. They still have the muscle mass of men, the physical endurance of men, the metabolism of men, and usually a superior height/weight ratio over women.

      This is manifestly untrue for trans women who are on hormone therapy.

      1. No, sorry, even for a woman on hormones, the male has the benefit of all that testosterone going through puberty and growing. This effects bone density for starters.

        1. And even real women using “doping” can stop doping a bit before a contest, and retain much of the advantages of having done so.

        2. No, sorry, no sources?

          Maybe google rather than trust your feelings.

          1. The article says that over time there is a decrease in bone mass, not that the male advantage disappears completely.

            In fact:

            “estradiol levels in transgender women were, on average, approximately intermediate between the female and male control values”

            1. estradiol levels are not the metric at issue here.

          2. Nice!

          3. Nice!

    3. Somehow the concept of “biological sex” became translated to the word “gender.” People were confused, since “gender” used to really be reserved for linguistics–and there didn’t seem to be a need for this translation. But it wasn’t a huge deal.

      Then, somehow “gender” started to mean the cultural aspects of sex-stereotypes–not the biological. Gender is what we call “masculine” and “feminine”–without actually calling them male or female traits. They’re on a spectrum, you know.

      But then, somehow (HOW?) Gender became associated with “gender identity.” You know–your “lived experience?” How you think of yourself–regardless of what other people think about you (or know about you?).

      THEN, somehow (HOW?) “gender identity” became what was critical, important, central, to identity. Penises and vaginas were unimportant, meaningless. Biological sex became subordinate (even irrelevant!) to “gender identity.” We’ve seen enough tom-boys to understand that a female can act masculine-ly without it making her a man. Biology didn’t make you a tom-boy–society or YOU did. So now you’re in control of your “gender.” Makes fair sense….

      But if Sex and Gender are the same thing, then you are also in control of your SEX, right? So when other “assigned” you your sex, you can now control it to be something (anything!) else. Male and Female have no more definition. Ask a transgender-advocate to define “male” or “female.” Go ahead.

  6. Fifty years ago, we put men on the moon. Now, we’re literally debating biological sex ontology. If that’s not a decline and fall, I don’t know what is.

    1. I remember when that one scientist oversaw landing a satellite on a comet that was traveling through space. 50 years ago it would have been televised in every classroom and hold the baited breath of the national public. But, what was the media most occupied with? Not the fact that you know we landed a satellite on a comet traveling thousands of miles per hour in space. Nope. The shirt the guy was wearing (his favorite lucky shirt) was “sexist”.

  7. Why do/should we care more about the Olympic shot put competition than we did about the institution of marriage?

    1. There are still so few institutions left to defend, we are basically down to the Olympic shot put competition.

    2. Do you have any idea what an Olympic shot could do if it hits someone in the audience after a bad put?

      1. Our disuss field had a bike path across the middle of it. I recall one close call from a speeding chick on a 10-speed. Right at head and neck level.

  8. Lots of really unhappy dudes here. Guys, momentum is not position. Cheer up – it’s still kind of the greatest to be a straight male, and trying to figure out marginal changes to sports won’t change that.

    1. Well said. I just cannot believe all these privileged male science-deniers who want to mansplain about how transwomen “aren’t really women” or are “biologically male.” Such hateful nonsense. It’s 2019!

    2. What is so great about being a straight male?

      Is it the state based discrimination faced every single day?

      Maybe it is having to endure an endless hum-drum about how you are the problem?

      Perhaps it is getting passed up for a promotion solely because you don’t have the genitals that are currently politically favored?

      Or maybe it is the fact that if I want a romantic partner I have to engage in the very risky proposition of asking a woman out which could either end very well or turn into a sexual harassment allegation and I won’t know which outcome might happen on this spectrum until I actually take said action?

      1. WAAAAA!.

        If you’re a white, American male (cisgender of course!), and are not successful or at least have a fulfilling existence, then YOU are a loser.

        1. That is a lot of hateful projection there…

          1. It’s apedad. Read his usual comments. There is a pattern there…

          2. It’s not conservative/progressive (whatever) that’s holding us back as a country.

            It’s lazy, parasitic, ignorant, unproductive people who are prevent us from reaching higher.

            And that’s on both sides: from the pot-smoking, jobless hippy to the toothless, uneducated Tennessippian.

            Yes, I hate lazy — often self-imposed — ignorance.

            1. The center of empire historically shifts from the old sclerotic one to a new center on the outskirts. Greece changed to Rome which changed to Austria which changed to England which changed to the U.S.

              Now the U.S. is more concerned with burdening business via regulation and taxation, and the center of empire is shifting again to a nation keeping the trade routes open.

              China.

        2. “If you’re a white, American male (cisgender of course!), and are not successful or at least have a fulfilling existence, then YOU are a loser.”

          This is true of any American, really. It’s the land of opportunity!

      2. If you look for oppression, you will always find it. Check out some of the boo-hooing of slave-owners back in the day about what an oppressed class they are.

        I’m not bothered by some people saying I’m the problem based only on my demographics – those people are silly. Nor do I read some invidious affirmative action into every time a minority is promoted above me. And I don’t live in fear that asking a women for a date is sexual harassment, ’cause I don’t date in my workplace.

      3. “Perhaps it is getting passed up for a promotion solely because you don’t have the genitals that are currently politically favored?”

        Maybe you were passed up for other reasons.

        “Or maybe it is the fact that if I want a romantic partner…”

        It’s just consent. Maybe it’s more work than it used to be, but it’s very easy to avoid the situation you’re describing. For perspective, consider the things you don’t have to worry about on a date (i.e., being raped).

        1. It is funny when one points out that indeed straight men face obstacles, discrimination, double standard treatment, the response from those who don’t accept this as being true (which of course it is true) is simply being dismissive.

          But, if I were to say that same thing like “maybe you were passed up for other reasons (for a promotion)” to a woman or minority, I would be sexist or racist. Here though ntoj just treats the fact there might be a non-discriminatory reason as a matter of fact. Interesting double standard, eh?

          And what a woman doesn’t have to worry about is being accused of sexual harassment, then having their identity doxxed by feminists looking to make a political point, getting fired from their job for no cause, and then being blacklisted because no one ever would want to hire a man perceived as being a harasser. Don’t think this happens? Go ask the two guys who made a “dongle joke” at a conference which was just overheard by a feminist who then made it her mission to get them fired. Or any of the other countless similar character assassination examples from the last few years.

          1. “Here though ntoj just treats the fact there might be a non-discriminatory reason as a matter of fact. Interesting double standard, eh?”

            Yes, the double standard you have created in your head is very interesting. If some women who acted like as much of a fucking imbecile as you was complaining online about not getting what she deserved, I’d have reason to think that the basis for her non-promotion was her own imbecility. But I will concede that the case against you is stronger than her, since there is not generally discrimination in the workplace against men.

          2. “And what a woman doesn’t have to worry about is being accused of sexual harassment, then having their identity doxxed by feminists…”

            Would you rather be raped or doxxed by feminists? And are we comparing things of equal likelihood? Do you think doxxing or false accusations of rape that ruin people’s lives are more common than rape?

        2. For perspective, consider the things you don’t have to worry about on a date (i.e., being raped).

          Men can be raped too.

          1. They can. Do men get raped on dates at the same rate as women?

    3. Letting men compete as women, because they call themselves women, is hardly marginal.

      1. How is your life as a male impacted, I Callahan?

        1. Maybe he cares about life of women he knows being impacted?

          1. Sure, Bob, that’s it.

    4. Nice solipsistic projection.
      Almost everyone who comments here regularly and coherently has “won”. We are talking about what is right, not what is right for us.

      1. Alright for you. But the sour grapes above do not seem to be behalf of men generally, but regarding genuine personal feelings of oppression.

    5. “marginal changes to sports won’t change that.”

      Is anyone saying that they worry about men’s sports?

      A woman pretending to be a man is still a woman with some slight, transient improvement on athletic performance from male hormones shots.

      Letting “transgenders” compete in their “new” sex will not have any effect on men’s sports, but will devestate women’s sports.

      1. The OP set of a thread full of dudes posting about men being oppressed these days by feminists. Your attempt to steer it back to trying to use vehemence to turn your ipse dixit into facts is not going to rise above the swamp of male tears.

    6. Sarcastr0: “…trying to figure out marginal changes to sports…”

      The OP argues that the transgender changes to women’s sports aren’t so marginal. Somehow the conversation got sidetracked to women on men’s (or “open”) teams.

  9. I do not read the OP as arguing against men’s sports, but as trying to find legal ground for maintaining XX-female sports, when an argument from commen sense is insufficient.

    I am a way-above-average female runner. Not Olympic-elite, but I win my age group in marathon and ultra-running races. I out-perform the average man in my running circles, but there is no way I can come close to an above-average male runner?even one a decade older than I. When I compete, I don’t want to get pushed out of the women’s prizes by a man who thinks taking estrogen makes his body female. Any honest female will tell you that a man pumped full of estrogen is not a female. Period.

    I love watching men’s sports. (I love watching men, ok.) AND I want to compete against my own sex.

    1. Common. Sheesh.

    2. I read it as arguing for women’s sports, and not giving a damn whether men’s sports survive.

      Rather than arguing for the general proposition that both sexes are entitled to have their own sports.

      Special pleading, IOW.

      1. I read it as arguing that without sex-segregated sports, we would end up with only men’s sports because women can’t compete with men.

        Thus, I think you are wrong when you say Coleman does not give a damn about the survival of men’s sports. To the contrary, she recognizes men’s sports will survive regardless of whether or not we have sex-segregated sports.

        Moreover she argues that since men will have their own sports without sex-segregated sports, you are also wrong that she is making a special pleading for women.

        1. “To the contrary, she recognizes men’s sports will survive regardless of whether or not we have sex-segregated sports.”

          Sports with men in them, and men’s sports, are not the same thing. She’s openly advocating for a system where there are women’s sports, and then there are sports open to both sexes, and there are no men’s sports.

          Because the next step after opening the men’s sports to women is lawyers asking why there still aren’t any women in them, and not taking “they couldn’t hack it” for an answer.

          1. I think her argument here is ambiguous. I know that some women argue that truly exceptional women should be allowed to compete with men where there are no women’s teams available?i.e., football. This is, of course, delusional, since women just aren’t good enough, no matter how exceptional they may be.

            I do agree with you. Men should have men’s sports?their own domain of competition.

            I get frustrated because I think the vast majority of sports-lovers/watchers/participants take the common sense view of this: men have men’s sports; women have women’s (XX, not trans); some sports (like ultra-running) are just naturally mixed, but with sex-based prizes in addition to overall.

          2. This is an argument against lawyers, not an argument against allowing qualified women to participate in the NBA.

            1. It’s certainly an argument against opening the NBA to qualified women prior to abolishing disparate impact as a basis for legal action, and maybe subjecting investigations of sex discrimination to “loser pays”.

              1. “It’s certainly an argument against opening the NBA to qualified women prior to abolishing disparate impact as a basis for legal action…”

                Disparate impact has never applied to professional sports leagues. If they can get away with being explicitly gender-exclusive, what makes you think they’d be subject to disparate impact if a sports league permitted women? Was NCAA baseball subject to disparate impact after Ila Borders pitched? NCAA football has allowed women to play. Did that result in the parade of horribles you describe?

            2. “against allowing qualified women to participate in the NBA.”

              Qualified?

              None such creatures exist. No woman is better than the worst G League man.

              They are shorter, slower, weaker. The few that are tall enough are not nearly good enough.

          3. Sports with men in them, and men’s sports, are not the same thing

            That’s not how I understood Coleman’s arguments. Because she claims men have a stark competitive advantage, she argues that co-ed sports are de facto men’s sports.

          4. Brett, your persecution complex is pathetic. We have had this regime for decades. “They couldn’t hack it” is exactly the answer that everyone has always accepted. Nobody is challenging this.

  10. There’s no such thing as a “transwoman.” Chopping off your genitals and pumping your body full of chemicals doesn’t transform a man into a woman. It just means he’s a man with no genitals and a bunch of artificial chemicals in his body. If he wants to compete as an athlete, then he should compete against other men. Period.

    1. I always love the headline “Man Has Baby”. Nope. That isn’t a man who had that baby. It is a woman.

      1. Eh, technically, a man can carry a baby to term with hormonal support and a little surgical intervention to get the fertilized egg in their in the first place. The placenta is generated by the fetus, not the mother, and is perfectly capable of connecting to any tissue that has a blood supply.

        And then bleed to death during delivery, of course: It’s the ectopic pregnancy from Hell.

  11. Title IX:
    “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

    Reads like eliminating all sexual preferences for all sports will fulfill these requirements. No “men’s” or “women’s” sports, just sports. May the best humanoid win.
    Nothing at all about having to create sex preference sport, “woman’s” basketball, soccer, etc.

    To all the females (real live born that way females) who are unhappy with all that has come about, I told you in the seventies that “feminism” was going to destroy your lifestyle. You said it was just about jobs and pay; I said it was about taking over society and eliminating courtesy.
    I was right and you were wrong; deal with it.

    1. Stop lumping all women together. We are not some monolithic force that had a single vision for what being a woman in the late 20th/early 21st century would look like.

    2. It would seem on the surface that Title IX prohibits sex-segregated bathrooms. Yet, that can’t be the case. Perhaps for the same reason that Title IX permits sex-segregated bathrooms, it permits sex-segregated sports?

      1. It would seem on the surface that Title IX prohibits unequal sex segregated bathrooms. It would never have gone anywhere if anybody thought at the time that it prohibited sex segregated bathrooms, it was that sort of threat that killed the ERA.

        1. I agree that Title IX permits separate-but-equal sex-segregated bathrooms. However, I highly doubt that Title IX generally permits separate-but-equal sex-segregated facilities and services. So, there must be a distinction between sex-segregated bathrooms and most other sex-segregated facilities and services. Which side of the line do sex-segregated sports fall on?

    3. >Reads like eliminating all sexual preferences for all sports will fulfill these requirements.

      IDK. It’s been interpreted as requiring proportional participation in practice. So, on a typical campus with 55% women, you need 55% women in the athletic department.

  12. re: “And I don’t find it useful to compete over which of us has suffered most from our respective marginalizations.”

    Well, there’s your mistake. A great many people find it highly profitable to compete over their respective victimhood.

  13. Gender is gone. Title IX should follow.

  14. The sooner the greats are knocked down by trans-fakes, the better. Then, and only then, will things come to a head. When the likes of Serena Williams can’t make a finals because there are two trans-competitors, then we’ll see women athletes start speaking out. Martina already has, but she’s retired. The rest are scared shitless, and are keeping their mouths shut, thus making the problem worse for themselves. Then need to suffer before they defend themselves. I’ll be eating my popcorn while it happens.

  15. Girls who play sport stay in school longer, suffer fewer health problems, enter the labor force at higher rates, and are more likely to land better jobs. They are also more likely to lead. EY research shows stunningly that 94% percent of women C-Suite executives today played sport, and over half played at a university level

    Causality going the wrong way, maybe?

    C-Suite executives tend to be super-motivated, super-competitive types, no?

    The sort who want to play sports, and will find them even if the school doesn’t do them, and equally aren’t successful, motivated, and competitive because sports made them that way?

    This reeks of the sort of cause-effect conflation that leads people to think owning a house makes one middle-class, rather than the other way around.

  16. The fundamental flaw in this article is the assumption that there is some universal truth here.

    Just what exactly is wrong with the idea there there might be some people organizing women-only sports, some organizing men-only sports, some organizing mixed sports, and some organizing trangender etc. sports, and audiences watching or paying for whichever they choose to, and some watching or paying for none of them?

    Value should always reside in the eyes of the beholder. There is nothing wrong with some finding female-only sports extremely valuable, others find them a complete waste of time, and yet others somewhere in between.

  17. I can’t get Caitlyn Jenner out of my mind in this discussion.

    I realize she is too late in life to be competitive but as Bruce Jenner in 1976 he won the Olympic Decathlon and set a world record. The World Champion in the decathlon is often referred to as the best athlete in the world.

    Jenner has stated that she had gender issues since she was a youth. She had started to transition before and had taken hormone therapy before but stopped before finally coming out. Imagine if she had acted on those feelings and come out not long after winning the Olympic Gold and started to compete as a woman.

    Imagine if something similar were to happen today.

    1. Jenner is not a “she”. It is a “he”, has been, and always will be. I just think it is sad that his mental disease was allowed to fester for so long. He should have been properly treated years ago.

  18. The dirty truth is that “trans” people are just acting out a clinical psychological disorder that should be treated as such and not with genital multination and flooding their bodies with artificial hormones.

    1. Mass hysteria, agreed.
      My children’s hospital set up a trans clinic about 5 years ago, dispenses puberty blockers and hormones like per candy, and lops off penises and breasts in the operating rooms. Thus is now the norm for pediatric hospitals.

      1. Seems legit.

      2. “Thus is now the norm for pediatric hospitals.”

        I do not believe this is true. To get sex-change surgery requires documentation of the condition (gender dysphoria), extensive counseling/therapy, and referral to a specialized center. Gender dysphoria to /any/ degree is a fairly rare phenomenon (perhaps 1-2% of the population at this time), so one will not find a lot of surgeries of youth occurring.

        1. “perhaps 1-2% of the population at this time),”

          I’ve now looked this up. Less than 1%. Possibly far less.

        2. There’s been a spike in the surgery lately, seemingly due to an epidemic of Munchhausen by Proxy. Deciding that your kid is “trans” and getting them “treatment” is the in thing in some circles.

          Johns Hopkins, which pioneered the ‘gender reassignment” surgery, stopped doing it after they reviewed the clinical results, and discovered that it really didn’t have any positive effect on outcomes. The patients claimed to be happier about themselves, but were still killing themselves at the same rate as before, or worse.

          Then a few years ago they resumed it, under political pressure, despite the fact that the outcomes hadn’t changed any. Just another case of politics overriding medical findings, like happens in psychiatry all the time. But it’s unusual in surgery, they usually pay more attention to outcomes.

          1. There’s been a spike in the surgery lately

            1) Gasman is still lying, no?
            2) is there a spike, though? Or is it just being covered more by the right wing media?
            3) medical procedures can be indicated for reasons other than preventing suicide.

  19. “Here’s a summary of the value the women’s category provides to individuals and to society”
    What a pile of horse shit. And it’s horse shit that can stick to every fucking classification you can name. Why not a Title IX for short people? Why not a Title IX for idiots that can’t remember the rules of the game? Why not a Title IX for old people? They need some individual goods and stakeholder goods and societal goods also.

    This is the fucking government – Rule 1 is everyone is equal under the law. When you start classifying people by gender/sex/disposition/testosterone level/skin color/national origin/number of fucking toes growing out of their head to decide they either do or don’t fit into the law how the fuck is that equal treatment?

    Doriane, your making a case for allowing discrimination for any reason at the federal level. But, I know, we’ll keep it narrow and just apply it to girls because girls need a little extra help. It won’t ever go any further, like we’ll never have special rules for LGBTQIZRBXMNOP. How about that ADA law? Shit, we’re having a hell of a time defining who that covers. How about them bathroom laws? Shit, they ain’t going well either. I know, racial quotas! Shit, Harvard and those damn Asians screwed that up. I know, Affirmative Action. That’s worked out well, hasn’t it?

    Take the fucking high road, Doriane. Try to admit that all people are equal which also means don’t give out special privileges by law. Give freedom a try.

  20. Societal goods include, from Sex in Sport, “‘challenging rigid gender norms’ so that girls and women gain “‘opportunities to become supported, educated and empowered.'”

    Isn’t “challenging rigid gender norms” exactly what the transfolk claim to be doing?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.