Thank you George! This is exactly how we have felt going through this at San Jose State. You described it perfectly! One man destroyed this volleyball season and so much more for the players, families, coaches and friends!
Sadly she doesn't feel any remorse. Because like minorities who used affirmative action to take away opportunities from others years ago when blacks were discriminated against by bigots, she and her supporters feel the same way due to that portion of the #SaveFemaleSports movement who refuse to accept the existence of trans women when they should instead be accepted for who they are, yet required to compete in the Open/Men's divisions with others born male. If we choose our words more carefully, like Perry did in his excellent piece, we won't raise sympathy for an aggrieved class, rather it will become more apparent females are the aggrieved class here.
Winston Churchill: "never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty — never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense."
In this case both honour & good sense dictate the pronoun "HE."
It's your choice to make this a battle over linguistics and ownership of the word woman, and sadly that's why we still haven't won the MORE IMPORTANT battle to save women's sports for females. The choice is yours and your compatriots, and our daughters and granddaughters will have to live with the consequences as Brooke and her teammates and supporters are suffering now... https://open.substack.com/pub/normanjansen/p/fairness-for-female-athletes
Doesn't matter what I think or any other individual, even you. What matters is the court of public opinion and courts of law. You're the one using words that bolster those who believe trans athletes deserve special treatment because people like you refuse to accept them. See the big picture. Have some empathy.
In order to help Brooke and others it would be wise to appreciate that the court of public opinion (where feelings are important) has a significant role in how public policy is set and even on how judges rule. Let's choose to win the battle to preserve women's sports for females rather than stubbornly insist on "he" for males when in common parlance "he" is for boys and men. Transphobia is the energy trans activists feed off of and you're unwittingly feeding them with ammo.
People, this is Norman, who thinks he is being a Very Nice Man by bullying women. He does the old cut and paste. He reminds me of an engagement farmer on Xitter who does this: says the same thing over and over. I'm muting him. He can read me all he wants. I've already read his stock response.
Well now it's clear why you have such a narrow view when you mute people who try to share views from orthogonal angles. Not sure what you call bullying (unless you're feeling a touch of cognitive dissonance). For others more interested in being part of the solution instead of the problem, here's a suggestion that might help folks like Diana Murray. https://normanjansen.substack.com/p/cant-we-all-just-get-along
Excellent. This whole male invasion is infuriating. Not just males on girls teams but the self ID shite means all a man has to do is check the female box on entries and he gets to compete in things like girls skateboarding contests and walks away with prize money. Many pro and amateur sports have prize money, local road races, etc. it does not happen to males. It’s infuriating, demeaning and completely disrespectful.
Yes, I helped gather stats for shewon.org. I often thought about the women in amateur competitions, driving around to weekly meets for their sport, and knowing that they would have no chance of winning the trophy and the small amount of money that came with it. Enough to buy a tank of gas, maybe. Everyone knows it's not fair, but they can't say it.
Amateur / semi-pro sports are kinda my bread and butter - the middle of the sports pyramid, so to speak. The reason I'm so deep into this topic is because I encountered it with a semi-pro women's soccer team I was an assistant coach for last summer. https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/gender-ideology-leaves-coaches-with
Thanks, Coach, for linking that article, big wow, what a great piece of writing. Now I am tracking down and reading all your work. Whenever I hear someone say--and I hear it too often--"well, this will all end when the women athletes stand up for themselves!" I think, no, it's the administrators, sponsors, the guys at the top who will end this. I like to write thank you notes to coaches (and athletes & politicians) who speak out, despite the risk of jeopardizing their jobs.
Somehow I am especially irked when someone who is playing in the middle of the pyramid, for the love of the game, falls victim to this idiocy.
Same here. When boys like Will “Lia” Thomas win the girls are told to shut up and they are often required to attend DEI reeducation classes. In the case of Reilly Gaines she tied and he was given the trophy. In other words “too bad for you, suck it up and shut up or lose your scholarship “. I was a competitive distance runner for decades, not a national star by any means but a good regional competitor. I love my sport and I am 77 so I was an early female competitor in the Boston Marathon back in the day. Grew up before title 9 with 6 brothers. We worked hard as women to earn our place as athletes. I won’t be quiet.
Good. The rising chorus of pushback online, JK Rowling uncanceled, teams forfeiting games and now lawsuits (Kaya Breen). This is winnable. I am not anti-trans although I do see it as a mental illness and/or kink. But I’m against using your male body to cheat and harm in bio women’s spaces.
Yes! The ‘it’s only a few’ argument looks at this the wrong way round and ignores the much wider impact.
‘Just one trans woman’ regularly using a gym changing room potentially affects many women who want to visit that gym. The presence of ‘just one trans woman’ in a female prison potentially causes psychological harm to dozens of prisoners, and possibly physical harm because you cannot risk assess away the male physique. Where is the empathy for these vulnerable women?
It’s not ‘progressive’ to ignore the impact on women. Fear of men is statistically rational. If some women are comfortable with trans women in changing rooms /refuges etc then that’s for them - but they do not get to consent for everybody else.
I’m left wing and support gay marriage, abortion, live and let live etc and think trans people should enjoy safe and dignified lives - but this cannot be at the expense of women.
I agree. But--how many is enough for the people who say "it's only a few"? If one girl is kept off the team, if one woman is raped by a prisoner, it's one too many. Why is he more important than her?
Agree. And for example, we don’t accept ‘it’s only a few young girls forced to give birth after incest’ as a reasonable argument in the abortion debate. Or ‘it’s only a few women dying because of a lack of medically necessary abortion’. No - just one is one too many.
I cannot understand this willingness to sacrifice safety and opportunities for young girls and women, even if it were ‘just a few’ trans individuals. And it’s not a few anymore. We can treat these kids and trans adults with compassion without ignoring/accepting harm to woman and girls.
The "few people" argument can be turned around, since we keep being told there are very few males trying to get on female teams. Since turning female sports into an open category is only demanded by a few people, why are we spending so much time catering to their demands?
I have read that a female player who was placed in a competitive position with Fleming for the starting spot ultimately had to leave the school. She lost her scholarship and couldn’t afford to continue without it.
Funny you should mention Jen Psaki's sycophancy. She put on a disgraceful show of it precisely in relation to men in women's sports in a conversation with Tim Miller on his Bulwark podcast on November 19. That prompted me to write a comment about it over at Yascha Mounk's Substack. His piece is titled "Don't expect Democrats to give up on wokeness any time soon." I used a passage about Seth Moulton as my jumping-off point:
" 'Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone rather than being brutally honest about the challenges many Americans face,' Moulton acknowledged last week. 'I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.' "
Moulton is correct in saying Democrats are not supposed to be sex realists who question the tenets of gender identity ideology. For proof, one need look no futher than the exchange between Tim Miller of The Bulwark podcast and former White House press secretary Jen Psaki during the November 19, 2024, episode, in which Mr. Miller and Ms. Psaki discuss Democratic Party messaging. And whose name should come up be Seth Moulton's . . .
27:49 Psaki: Look, let me just talk about the cultural issues, though, because you mentioned 2004. And like one of the lessons from 2004 that I think was an overwrought wrong one from Democrats was we can't talk about gay marriage ever and nobody can be for it because that's how Bush won the election. Right.
Miller: Yeah.
Psaki: That was the lesson. And right now you have people coming out and saying we can never speak of trans kids in any positive fashion. And you're like, wait a second. First of all, there was an ad that was run that was effective about Kamala Harris's answer to an ACLU questionnaire and her answer when she for like a couple of months in 2019 about supporting the funding paying for gender affirming care for undocumented immigrants in prison.
Miller: Right. Yes. Yeah.
Psaki: First of all, I don't I don't know who supports that. Why would most people support that? So let's just be clear about that. That doesn't mean that you can't say, you know what? There are kids out there who are struggling through mental health issues, who were born in a body they don't feel like is their own.
And we can be humane and support that as a society. I've also seen and because I went after him the other bit, I can just say this. Seth Moulton, who I know, and he is a good member in many ways, but he has been pulled into the right-wingosphere theory that every community across the country has trans girls who are beating up girls who were born girls and, like... All of these things. This is not an issue across the country of all of these states. So many states have passed these laws that like ban trans youth and sports. You know what?
And a lot of these states, they don't have a single example. They have zero. They have one. They have two. So the other risk here is being so pulled into trying to be contrarian that you're not looking at the facts of the issue. And if it's an actual issue. I agree with all that.
Miller: On the other hand, though, like if the view is just like if there's a Democrat that says, I don't think that biological males who have transitioned should be playing in girls sports. I think it's a complicated issue. I agree with you. It's not that like there are very few examples of it.
And it's way over indexed in the culture. Like if a Democrat has that view, like shouldn't you just let them have it? Like, do they really need to be protested?
Psaki: No, I don't think people should be protesting people. But I also think people who get they get pulled into it like I'm going to real talk you. This is something we should say that, like, [scoffing] we are just all because I am a father of girls and like I have a daughter, too. This is not a universal issue.
So, like, let's call out their bullshit. That's what I'm saying. Right. It's like. There's a little bit of falling prey to what some of the right-wing sphere is saying. Check the facts. Read the fine print. I think there are certain issues Democrats should be more outspoken about, including I'm not sure who is for the federal funding of gender-affirming care in prison. Why? Let's just probably move that one to the side. Those two prisoners go above them.
31:00 But there are a range of issues that I think there's a risk here of like people losing some humanity in order to feel like they're speaking out against woke, whatever the heck that means.
In this colloquy, the highly placed and influential Jen Paski is a self-righteous, intransigent, closed-minded progressive who goes so far as to feign ignorance of the meaning of the term "woke." C'mon.
It's emblematic of Psaki's myopia and her blind adherence to the trans activist line that any Democrat who questions the presence of biological males who identify as female on women's-only athletic teams must have been "pulled into the right-wingosphere theory" and "[fallen] prey to what some of the right-wing sphere is saying."
There are distinct echoes in Psaki's response of the trans activist MO of reflexively smearing all critics. No Democrat could possibly be skeptical of gender ideology unless he'd come under the baneful influence of the right, correct? The woman whose business it was to be on top of everything obviously does not know that there is a rapidly growing sex realist/gender critical movement that does not take its orders from Ron DeSantis, Chris Rufo or white Christian nationalists. For one thing, it is largely being led by British women who are most definitely not the political heirs of Maggie Thatcher. They are, first and foremost, old-school feminists. Lesbians and gay men are well represented in their ranks. Many of the gay men are centrist Democrats who are dismayed that their party has gotten basics such as human biology and sex so wrong.
Unwilling to debate the issue on the merits, Psaki waves it away on the specious grounds that there are too few trans women athletes to make a fuss about. She would never be so dismissive if members of the Democratic Party's favored racial or ethnic identity groups were being harmed. In that case, one incident would be one too many. This is typical of the Democratic mainstream's steadfast refusal to extend even one iota of intellectual charity to the sex realist position. When Psaki says "check the facts," what she and most other Dems are doing is regurgitating trans activist talking points. Then, when presented with facts and concepts that contradict trans orthodoxy, Psaki is all "Let's call out their bullshit."
Excellent post. And good for your clarity in using use words that emphasize the tragedy caused by one male and those siding with (in this case) one trans woman when they should be siding with the far larger number of females so badly and unfairly disadvantaged. https://open.substack.com/pub/normanjansen/p/fairness-for-female-athletes
Awesome article - and your metaphor is even better than mine, more holistic. My metaphor is using downstream effects.
Every girl/woman *behind* the guy that took her place is knocked down a peg.
I would love to hear celebrity coaches weigh in on this. What chance would Geno Auriemma have had to coach such great female basketball players as Diana Taurasi, Rebecca Lobo, Sue Bird, Maya Moore, Brianna Stewart, and Paige Bueckers if women's b-ball were invaded by men? If Lisa Bluder had had to accept men on her team, Caitlin Clark would've been a bench warmer.
Helpful and insightful! Since many of us who care about this issue don't have sports backgrounds, I'd like to suggest that you define the special terms like "L." "kill shot," etc. Your analysis deserves a wide audience, but the technical words might get in the way of some peoples' understanding.
This involved 600 black men, 400 who were actively prevented from having care, 200 serving as controls. This occurred over a 40 year period, 1932 to 1972. The effect expanded from those 400 men, their wives (some of whom contracted syphilis) and children (some of whom had congenital syphilis) throughout their extended families and communities, similar to what you calculated.
However, once exposed by Jean Heller in 1972, the outrage was a nuclear bomb that exploded and spread across decades. Now you might find a majority of native-born black Americans are sometimes lethally distrustful of medical systems in the US. I would say the minimal impact is on the lives of over 20,000,000 Americans.
For this unfair practice, I wouldn’t be surprised if the impact reached minimum of 75,000,000 women in the next decade.
There’s a function to calculate the spread of such information.
Thank you George! This is exactly how we have felt going through this at San Jose State. You described it perfectly! One man destroyed this volleyball season and so much more for the players, families, coaches and friends!
I wonder what the guy in question feels about that. I wonder if he is embarrassed or just loves to hurt so many women and have such noteriety.
Sadly she doesn't feel any remorse. Because like minorities who used affirmative action to take away opportunities from others years ago when blacks were discriminated against by bigots, she and her supporters feel the same way due to that portion of the #SaveFemaleSports movement who refuse to accept the existence of trans women when they should instead be accepted for who they are, yet required to compete in the Open/Men's divisions with others born male. If we choose our words more carefully, like Perry did in his excellent piece, we won't raise sympathy for an aggrieved class, rather it will become more apparent females are the aggrieved class here.
https://open.substack.com/pub/normanjansen/p/gender-affirming-care-for-kids
HE. The English third person subject pronoun for a male is HE. That's what this is all about.
Winston Churchill: "never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty — never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense."
In this case both honour & good sense dictate the pronoun "HE."
It's your choice to make this a battle over linguistics and ownership of the word woman, and sadly that's why we still haven't won the MORE IMPORTANT battle to save women's sports for females. The choice is yours and your compatriots, and our daughters and granddaughters will have to live with the consequences as Brooke and her teammates and supporters are suffering now... https://open.substack.com/pub/normanjansen/p/fairness-for-female-athletes
Words mean what they mean, or they don't.
We haven't begun to fight, so stop being so judgemental.
HE is the 3rd person pronoun for males and HE remains HE.
And if you don't like that, bug off.
You're not an ally, you're a dictator.
Doesn't matter what I think or any other individual, even you. What matters is the court of public opinion and courts of law. You're the one using words that bolster those who believe trans athletes deserve special treatment because people like you refuse to accept them. See the big picture. Have some empathy.
I couldn't care less.
In order to help Brooke and others it would be wise to appreciate that the court of public opinion (where feelings are important) has a significant role in how public policy is set and even on how judges rule. Let's choose to win the battle to preserve women's sports for females rather than stubbornly insist on "he" for males when in common parlance "he" is for boys and men. Transphobia is the energy trans activists feed off of and you're unwittingly feeding them with ammo.
People, this is Norman, who thinks he is being a Very Nice Man by bullying women. He does the old cut and paste. He reminds me of an engagement farmer on Xitter who does this: says the same thing over and over. I'm muting him. He can read me all he wants. I've already read his stock response.
Well now it's clear why you have such a narrow view when you mute people who try to share views from orthogonal angles. Not sure what you call bullying (unless you're feeling a touch of cognitive dissonance). For others more interested in being part of the solution instead of the problem, here's a suggestion that might help folks like Diana Murray. https://normanjansen.substack.com/p/cant-we-all-just-get-along
i couldn’t care less about what you don’t care about. you are insignificant
This is an excellent post. Thank you for that important perspective.
Excellent. This whole male invasion is infuriating. Not just males on girls teams but the self ID shite means all a man has to do is check the female box on entries and he gets to compete in things like girls skateboarding contests and walks away with prize money. Many pro and amateur sports have prize money, local road races, etc. it does not happen to males. It’s infuriating, demeaning and completely disrespectful.
Yes, I helped gather stats for shewon.org. I often thought about the women in amateur competitions, driving around to weekly meets for their sport, and knowing that they would have no chance of winning the trophy and the small amount of money that came with it. Enough to buy a tank of gas, maybe. Everyone knows it's not fair, but they can't say it.
Amateur / semi-pro sports are kinda my bread and butter - the middle of the sports pyramid, so to speak. The reason I'm so deep into this topic is because I encountered it with a semi-pro women's soccer team I was an assistant coach for last summer. https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/gender-ideology-leaves-coaches-with
Thanks, Coach, for linking that article, big wow, what a great piece of writing. Now I am tracking down and reading all your work. Whenever I hear someone say--and I hear it too often--"well, this will all end when the women athletes stand up for themselves!" I think, no, it's the administrators, sponsors, the guys at the top who will end this. I like to write thank you notes to coaches (and athletes & politicians) who speak out, despite the risk of jeopardizing their jobs.
Somehow I am especially irked when someone who is playing in the middle of the pyramid, for the love of the game, falls victim to this idiocy.
Same here. When boys like Will “Lia” Thomas win the girls are told to shut up and they are often required to attend DEI reeducation classes. In the case of Reilly Gaines she tied and he was given the trophy. In other words “too bad for you, suck it up and shut up or lose your scholarship “. I was a competitive distance runner for decades, not a national star by any means but a good regional competitor. I love my sport and I am 77 so I was an early female competitor in the Boston Marathon back in the day. Grew up before title 9 with 6 brothers. We worked hard as women to earn our place as athletes. I won’t be quiet.
Good. The rising chorus of pushback online, JK Rowling uncanceled, teams forfeiting games and now lawsuits (Kaya Breen). This is winnable. I am not anti-trans although I do see it as a mental illness and/or kink. But I’m against using your male body to cheat and harm in bio women’s spaces.
Agree. It’s a mental health issue not a social justice issue. Getting it wrong has had devastating consequences for many women and children.
Yes! The ‘it’s only a few’ argument looks at this the wrong way round and ignores the much wider impact.
‘Just one trans woman’ regularly using a gym changing room potentially affects many women who want to visit that gym. The presence of ‘just one trans woman’ in a female prison potentially causes psychological harm to dozens of prisoners, and possibly physical harm because you cannot risk assess away the male physique. Where is the empathy for these vulnerable women?
It’s not ‘progressive’ to ignore the impact on women. Fear of men is statistically rational. If some women are comfortable with trans women in changing rooms /refuges etc then that’s for them - but they do not get to consent for everybody else.
I’m left wing and support gay marriage, abortion, live and let live etc and think trans people should enjoy safe and dignified lives - but this cannot be at the expense of women.
I agree. But--how many is enough for the people who say "it's only a few"? If one girl is kept off the team, if one woman is raped by a prisoner, it's one too many. Why is he more important than her?
Agree. And for example, we don’t accept ‘it’s only a few young girls forced to give birth after incest’ as a reasonable argument in the abortion debate. Or ‘it’s only a few women dying because of a lack of medically necessary abortion’. No - just one is one too many.
I cannot understand this willingness to sacrifice safety and opportunities for young girls and women, even if it were ‘just a few’ trans individuals. And it’s not a few anymore. We can treat these kids and trans adults with compassion without ignoring/accepting harm to woman and girls.
The "very small number" argument is always a bad faith deflection.
Always.
The "few people" argument can be turned around, since we keep being told there are very few males trying to get on female teams. Since turning female sports into an open category is only demanded by a few people, why are we spending so much time catering to their demands?
I have read that a female player who was placed in a competitive position with Fleming for the starting spot ultimately had to leave the school. She lost her scholarship and couldn’t afford to continue without it.
Funny you should mention Jen Psaki's sycophancy. She put on a disgraceful show of it precisely in relation to men in women's sports in a conversation with Tim Miller on his Bulwark podcast on November 19. That prompted me to write a comment about it over at Yascha Mounk's Substack. His piece is titled "Don't expect Democrats to give up on wokeness any time soon." I used a passage about Seth Moulton as my jumping-off point:
" 'Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone rather than being brutally honest about the challenges many Americans face,' Moulton acknowledged last week. 'I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.' "
Moulton is correct in saying Democrats are not supposed to be sex realists who question the tenets of gender identity ideology. For proof, one need look no futher than the exchange between Tim Miller of The Bulwark podcast and former White House press secretary Jen Psaki during the November 19, 2024, episode, in which Mr. Miller and Ms. Psaki discuss Democratic Party messaging. And whose name should come up be Seth Moulton's . . .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27:49 Psaki: Look, let me just talk about the cultural issues, though, because you mentioned 2004. And like one of the lessons from 2004 that I think was an overwrought wrong one from Democrats was we can't talk about gay marriage ever and nobody can be for it because that's how Bush won the election. Right.
Miller: Yeah.
Psaki: That was the lesson. And right now you have people coming out and saying we can never speak of trans kids in any positive fashion. And you're like, wait a second. First of all, there was an ad that was run that was effective about Kamala Harris's answer to an ACLU questionnaire and her answer when she for like a couple of months in 2019 about supporting the funding paying for gender affirming care for undocumented immigrants in prison.
Miller: Right. Yes. Yeah.
Psaki: First of all, I don't I don't know who supports that. Why would most people support that? So let's just be clear about that. That doesn't mean that you can't say, you know what? There are kids out there who are struggling through mental health issues, who were born in a body they don't feel like is their own.
And we can be humane and support that as a society. I've also seen and because I went after him the other bit, I can just say this. Seth Moulton, who I know, and he is a good member in many ways, but he has been pulled into the right-wingosphere theory that every community across the country has trans girls who are beating up girls who were born girls and, like... All of these things. This is not an issue across the country of all of these states. So many states have passed these laws that like ban trans youth and sports. You know what?
And a lot of these states, they don't have a single example. They have zero. They have one. They have two. So the other risk here is being so pulled into trying to be contrarian that you're not looking at the facts of the issue. And if it's an actual issue. I agree with all that.
Miller: On the other hand, though, like if the view is just like if there's a Democrat that says, I don't think that biological males who have transitioned should be playing in girls sports. I think it's a complicated issue. I agree with you. It's not that like there are very few examples of it.
And it's way over indexed in the culture. Like if a Democrat has that view, like shouldn't you just let them have it? Like, do they really need to be protested?
Psaki: No, I don't think people should be protesting people. But I also think people who get they get pulled into it like I'm going to real talk you. This is something we should say that, like, [scoffing] we are just all because I am a father of girls and like I have a daughter, too. This is not a universal issue.
So, like, let's call out their bullshit. That's what I'm saying. Right. It's like. There's a little bit of falling prey to what some of the right-wing sphere is saying. Check the facts. Read the fine print. I think there are certain issues Democrats should be more outspoken about, including I'm not sure who is for the federal funding of gender-affirming care in prison. Why? Let's just probably move that one to the side. Those two prisoners go above them.
31:00 But there are a range of issues that I think there's a risk here of like people losing some humanity in order to feel like they're speaking out against woke, whatever the heck that means.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There you have it.
In this colloquy, the highly placed and influential Jen Paski is a self-righteous, intransigent, closed-minded progressive who goes so far as to feign ignorance of the meaning of the term "woke." C'mon.
It's emblematic of Psaki's myopia and her blind adherence to the trans activist line that any Democrat who questions the presence of biological males who identify as female on women's-only athletic teams must have been "pulled into the right-wingosphere theory" and "[fallen] prey to what some of the right-wing sphere is saying."
There are distinct echoes in Psaki's response of the trans activist MO of reflexively smearing all critics. No Democrat could possibly be skeptical of gender ideology unless he'd come under the baneful influence of the right, correct? The woman whose business it was to be on top of everything obviously does not know that there is a rapidly growing sex realist/gender critical movement that does not take its orders from Ron DeSantis, Chris Rufo or white Christian nationalists. For one thing, it is largely being led by British women who are most definitely not the political heirs of Maggie Thatcher. They are, first and foremost, old-school feminists. Lesbians and gay men are well represented in their ranks. Many of the gay men are centrist Democrats who are dismayed that their party has gotten basics such as human biology and sex so wrong.
Unwilling to debate the issue on the merits, Psaki waves it away on the specious grounds that there are too few trans women athletes to make a fuss about. She would never be so dismissive if members of the Democratic Party's favored racial or ethnic identity groups were being harmed. In that case, one incident would be one too many. This is typical of the Democratic mainstream's steadfast refusal to extend even one iota of intellectual charity to the sex realist position. When Psaki says "check the facts," what she and most other Dems are doing is regurgitating trans activist talking points. Then, when presented with facts and concepts that contradict trans orthodoxy, Psaki is all "Let's call out their bullshit."
Moulton is trying to have it both ways. The Dems aren't afraid to offend people. They've been captured by a Crazy Cabal of Cuckoos.
Excellent post. And good for your clarity in using use words that emphasize the tragedy caused by one male and those siding with (in this case) one trans woman when they should be siding with the far larger number of females so badly and unfairly disadvantaged. https://open.substack.com/pub/normanjansen/p/fairness-for-female-athletes
Awesome article - and your metaphor is even better than mine, more holistic. My metaphor is using downstream effects.
Every girl/woman *behind* the guy that took her place is knocked down a peg.
I would love to hear celebrity coaches weigh in on this. What chance would Geno Auriemma have had to coach such great female basketball players as Diana Taurasi, Rebecca Lobo, Sue Bird, Maya Moore, Brianna Stewart, and Paige Bueckers if women's b-ball were invaded by men? If Lisa Bluder had had to accept men on her team, Caitlin Clark would've been a bench warmer.
Another banger. Thanks for this one.
Helpful and insightful! Since many of us who care about this issue don't have sports backgrounds, I'd like to suggest that you define the special terms like "L." "kill shot," etc. Your analysis deserves a wide audience, but the technical words might get in the way of some peoples' understanding.
Excellent projection, and good visual.
I think you’re quite modestly understating the impact.
Consider the Tuskegee Syphilis atrocity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study
This involved 600 black men, 400 who were actively prevented from having care, 200 serving as controls. This occurred over a 40 year period, 1932 to 1972. The effect expanded from those 400 men, their wives (some of whom contracted syphilis) and children (some of whom had congenital syphilis) throughout their extended families and communities, similar to what you calculated.
However, once exposed by Jean Heller in 1972, the outrage was a nuclear bomb that exploded and spread across decades. Now you might find a majority of native-born black Americans are sometimes lethally distrustful of medical systems in the US. I would say the minimal impact is on the lives of over 20,000,000 Americans.
For this unfair practice, I wouldn’t be surprised if the impact reached minimum of 75,000,000 women in the next decade.
There’s a function to calculate the spread of such information.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function
There then old commercial with the inimitable Heather Locklear for Fabergé Organics shampoo…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyxmj1Yf6Dk
There was a reason why old school trans kept very quiet. The more you look, the less you like.
The math is mathin’ here for sure. There is no justification to impose the involvement of a single male player in Women’s Sports.
You've done a great job spelling it out. Now you might consider that THIS IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE EXERCISE.
The “it’s only a few” argument falls flat when one considers the enormous pressure to publish one’s pronouns.
Real girls don’t have dicks but girls with dicks have a serious mental illness.