Listen to the people

My letter to the editor of the Minnesota Star Tribune was printed. Please read the comments

Photo credit: Tierney L Cross, New York Times

My letter to the Minnesota Star Tribune about Governor Walz’s third-grade response to the Supreme Court decision was printed. It follows. Please read the many comments (it’s such a fringe thing, why would anyone care?). (The very first comment demonstrates what I was talking about—he called me names instead of engaging with the topic—why should girls give up their single -sex rights to boys?) No one answered that. The above photo accompanied my letter inthe Star Tribune. Please note the Satanic Circle flag included in the photo by the NY Times of trans allies.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that states may organize sports on the basis of sex. As part of that ruling, the justices agreed that Title IX allows for sex-separated sports, and that sex means biological sex, not gender identity.

As a result of this ruling, the 27 states that already organize school sports by sex may continue to do so. The 23 states that organize sports according to a student’s gender identity, including Minnesota, may continue to do so.

The decision was rational and objective, supported by scientific evidence. By comparison, Gov. Tim Walz’s response was off-key, hyperbolic … weird. He said: “As the Supreme Court says states can be cruel to trans kids, my message is clear: Here in Minnesota, we stand with and value our trans neighbors and youth.”

The Supreme Court did not say states could be cruel to trans kids. It said nothing of the kind. That’s not an interpretation; that’s an outright lie. Why would Walz characterize the very reasonable upholding of federally enshrined women and girls’ rights as “cruel”?

He provided no rational argument for continuing to violate girls’ and women’s Title IX rights but rather impugned the ethics of those who support them. He says it’s not just wrong — you’re a bad person for believing in science, in reality, for supporting girls’ sex-based rights. You’re cruel. It shuts down reasoned discussion of who is eligible for girls sports and shifts it to the morality of the other party. This is emotional, manipulative language, the realm of someone who has no rational argument. You’re either cruel or you “stand with and value our trans neighbors and youth.” Which necessitates erasing women and girls’ right to single-sex sports.

No need for emotional accusations; that’s straight up against federal law. Walz employed emotional manipulation straight from the abuser’s handbook to deflect from the fact that he has no excuse for continuing to violate the rights of half of Minnesota’s population.

Here are the comments:

Do the right thing and let grade school and high school trans athletes play on the team that they want.

But on college or pro events they must play on the biological they were assigned.

What’s the difference? Does something magically change when someone graduates high school? So as example, a kid excels in high school, gains a scholarship and then they can’t use it? Or gets drafted by a pro team and they can’t play?

Love the term “assigned”. As if some medical team is evaluating some collection of data and somehow reaching a conclusion.

The difference is fairness of competition between males and females of some sports.

A) Fairness how?...regarding what, exactly? -which then raises...

B) How are the groups “male” and “female” to be defined?...gametes?...chromosomes?...a particular phenotype? -none of those methods will result in two, neat groups- and what evidence is there to support the efficacy of the sorting method in achieving the stated goal of “fairness”?

gweirda...To ensure absolute fairness, perhaps the association with sex/gender should be eliminated, have one team and let the best athlete(s) perform. In basketball, no NBA/WNBA; for hockey, no NHL/PWHA; in tennis one class but allow mixed doubles, etc.

Using let the best person excel appears to be the best course of fairness to eliminate the issue(s) you appear to be concerned.

One team would mean the end of girls sports. What 5 girls could match 5 boys in 10th grade basketball?

qqq...With respect to previous comment, think sarcasm with respect to ensuring absolute fairness.

This particular topic has been written about, debated, commented on, accepted and ridiculed. I’m not going to rehash those arguments here.

I’d love to do the same - but since the status quo sees a vulnerable minority being harmed, I’m not comfortable walking away from a debate with those who hold the floor by simply shouting/chanting the same ignorant nonsense over and over.

I’ve always loved the term “fairness” when it comes to sports. For ex. -is it fair that some kids are born into a family where the parents can afford a one to one coach in the sport of their choice? Buy all the best equipment? Is it fair that I was a 5’ 7” slow kid who weighed 145 pounds on the HS football team? Or one of my favorites from long ago & I forget some details so excuse by condensed version. A woman was an African country was not allowed to participate in the Olympics because her testosterone levels were to high (no drugs). She was told it “wouldn’t be fair.” Her response was, well I’m competing against runners from other countries who have shoe contracts (she ran barefoot), nutritionists, individual coaches, stipends for training, and other advantages. What’s fair about that?

A professional competition should require you play on the team of your biological birth. We are talking about Olympic medals or professional sports with money involved.

Should be at the highschool level as well. Why should girls give up their spots on teams, why should girls face a male pitcher (as they did last year when the state high school girls softball championship team had a male (who identifies as a girl) as their pitcher). Why should one male on a girls soccer team allow them to dominate over other teams (and bench an otherwise eligible girl). This is unfair at all levels.

Women’s and Girl’s sports are just that.... for Women and Girls! Sad people are wanting to reverse decades of equal opportunity for Female athletes!

No one who voted for an adjudicated sexual assaulter and does not support women’s right to choose when or whether she gives birth has any business chiming in about women’s rights.

Lot of wrong guess work friend, I support Pro-Choice and raised and coached female athletes, so you missed by a mile. As for our President, well if you had run a better candidate maybe he would not be in office. Lesser of two evils I believe they call that!

Wow! You know humans can be complicated creatures and can have a variety of opinions.

Well said

Make all sports unisex. Let the person’s ability sort out what level they compete at.

In other words, very few girls will be in sports like track and field, hockey, volleyball, basketball, swimming, lacrosse, baseball and any other sport where boys typically are better athletically. There’s a reason why title IX was implemented…and rightly so.

Well you either have sports grouped by biological sex or remove the groupings...a vocal minority seem to be proponents of removing the biological sex groupings for sports teams.

That’s because a VERY vocal majority want to continue with simplistic groupings that:

a) are ill-defined (at best), and

b) do not advance the purported goal of grouping (but rather: hide the true goal of control/power)

The biological sex groupings are based on physical differences between males and females. The goal of the biological sex groupings is to create more fairness in competition.

The biological sexes are very well defined. Why do say they are “ill-defined (at best)”?

Certain traits/phenotypes may be well defined (though still producing a binodal rather than binary distribution?), but they don’t carry across to people on a consistent basis - at least not well enough to justify being cruel to an already-vulnerable minority of children, especially when the goal of such groupings is the maintenance of a harmful status quo often defined by vague, handwaving references to ‘fairness’.

Are you suggesting that the human species does not have a demonstrated binary biological sex difference, in which the vast majority of humans are either XY or XX, with small or large gametes?

I’m not asking whether there are humans who are exceptions to this binary biological sex difference.

I’m asking whether you are suggesting that there is no demonstrated binary biological sex difference (such as XY or XX) in humans.

Thanks for a respectful discussion.

Can men get pregnant and have babies? Or is this also one of those gray areas that goes against common sense?