It is one thing for males to argue they should be able to compete as females - after all it is fun for mediocre males to win as a woman- but to see a female who pretends to know something about sport promote against her own sex. That is really pathetic. Wade's parents mus be so proud.
What motivates those women to act against the interests of real women? Do they have savior complexes that have run amok? Have they fully bought into gender identity ideology and trans propaganda to the point where they have lost their ability to reason? Do they suffer from internalized misogyny?
Moreover, there has been much social and professional/financial approbation (“stunning & brave” can also pay the bills) available to those who have been willing to promote this corporately-sponsored and male-driven top-down inversion of biological reality & deprecation of women’s and children’s rights — and those men are absolutely misogynists and/or AGPs, though I repeat myself.
Thank you so much for addressing Wade for expressing opinions as facts, for pointing out her lying by omission, and for calling out her inaccuracies regarding women's sports. How she and Erin Strout were ever seen as supporters of women when they both advocate for men in women's sports is beyond me, but virtue signalers are gonna signal.
Wade’s entire career comes from her sporting opportunities without males yet she now advocates to throw away these same opportunities for other young women. She shows no self-reflection or concern for other females. Laughably, we wouldn’t even know her name if she had competed against males, oh the irony. Wade’s behavior is deplorable.
Great article Sarah. When the facts are inconvenient for someone such as Wade, they either ignore then and/or simply claim that their opinions are fact based . Their dishonesty should always be called out publicly.
Wade would not be moved one iota with the story of three males taking podium spots in the Women's 800m at the 2016 Olympics. She would almost certainly describe them as "ciswomen with naturally high testosterone."
Wade's other coverage of women's running is so good. For the life of me, I can not understand why she is willing to die a "Groundhog Day" number of deaths on the hill of allowing males to compete in women's sports. It's insane.
The IOC stance makes sense if you first assume that it doesn’t care about the quality of competition - it just wants competitions to take place so it can rake in money. The bureaucracy then isn’t interested in ultimate questions of fairness or safety, only “ will there be lots of competitors?” Dope testing wasn’t introduced until 1968, after multiple athletic organisations had already introduced it. Maybe this is the same process, but over a much longer time.
It is the height of misogyny to deny the existence of the female sex that excludes male biology.
And, you're right "biology" is a bad word to these misogynists. As author Lisa Shultz has pointed out: "Biology is NOT bigotry".
Whenever possible in public forums, we have to ensure that their "transmafia" voices are NOT the only voices to be heard
That's why I go every month to NYC Community Education District 2 meetings. For the last 2 months, I have been the only voice of reality there as the transmob comes out in full force for their public speaking sessions.
I have gotten mainstream media press for this. I have posted this Link below before, but I am reposting the Fox News write-up of this. I am the one who calls the transmafia "baby bullies" and it includes more excerpts from my speech:
Tied for fifth! That in and of itself is like winning the ultra, ultra, ultra consolation prize. Wow...what happened to the top three and no more ribbons? Oh, it's Maine? Never mind...
NCAA states that out of over 500,000 collegiate athletes, there are 10 or less transgender athletes. Could you do us a favor and just write them all a letter instead of airing your bigotry out on Substack? Kthx
Since the NCAA does not require student athletes to reveal their birth sex, and accepts whatever sex marker is on a student athlete's changeable birth certificate, the NCAA has no idea how many transgender athletes are competing in the NCAA.
If the NCAA knew there were 10 student athletes who were doping, or competing in an age or weight category for which they were not eligible, would that be just fine? If the media also was fully aware that the NCAA was allowing 10 student athletes to compete in the wrong sorts category or to compete while taking testosterone or EPO, would that be just fine? Because it's only ten? As I mentioned, the NCAA has no idea how many trans athletes are competing. What if that number was 20, or 3, or 100? What's the threshold for athletes competing in a category they are not eligible for? Defining and defending a category is an inclusion strategy, in the case I'm talking about, an inclusion strategy for women. If we don't define and defend the women's category, it ceases to exist. That's not bigotry; that's women's rights to their own sport.
Ten minutes ago, as I'm sure you know but are pretending not to, we had male and female sports and everyone knew what sex they were, just as they do now. I would prefer to simply rely on the fact that we all know what sex we are, and have enough respect and honor to participate in the correct sex category. But since men have been told/demanded that they can compete according to their gender identity, noninvasive, once-in-a-lifetime cheek swabs will identify sex accurately in 99% of people. Actually more than 99%. Cheek swabs will also flag the .018% of people with a Disorder of Sexual Development, who are either male or female but with a genetic disorder, as the name implies. Some people with DSDs were literally assigned female at birth based on external genitalia, but actually have internal functioning testes and XY chromosomes, so are male. That's why testing for the SRY gene is more accurate than whether F or M is on the birth certificate (to say nothing of the fact that sex markers on birth certificates can be changed in 44 states inthe US. Not accurate. Sex screening eliminates the possibility of ANYONE EVER being kept out of women's sports because of her appearance. If you are obliquely referring to athletes like Caster Semenya, Semenya was not barred from women's sports because he did not look female enough, Semenya was barred because he is male. Sex screening made that call
I'm not pretending anything, nor obliquely referring. I'm sincerely asking what you think the answer should be, and how you feel about the implications.
Part of my question, in fact, turns on that "everyone knew" paradigm.
So you've said you prefer the SRY genetic screen, rather than a chromosomal, hormonal, or physical (external sex characteristics) test. Or, obviously, a legal or social identification.
I think everybody understands that, for *most* people, all six of these would 'agree' in a binary sorting. So the entire conversation is always about edge cases, where not all possible markers match, and how to reconcile those people with a binary system like gendered competition.
The second part of my question above, in light of your answer to the first, is: how do you feel about the (few, but non-zero) people who would 'fail' an SRY screen for femaleness (e.g., the SRY gene is present on an X chromosome, as in Swyer Syndrome), but "everyone knew" were girls? Unless I am reading you incorrectly, you are saying that such a person "is male," even though this will be a surprise to everyone including themselves. (Would you want to be the one telling that kid they're not a girl?)
Conversely, an SRY-negative De la Chapelle Syndrome individual would 'pass' the same screen and "is female" - despite (possibly) having been identified as male from birth, and having (some degree of) male physical expression.
You are far more informed than I am about chromosomal anomalies. Of course, it would be difficult to deliver the news of Swyer Syndrome or De la Chapelle, but does that mean it would be better if that person did not have that information? Since those conditions have implications for future health care for that person? In developed countries, these conditions would likely come to light before a cheek swab for sports purposes.
As far as "reconciling" people with these extremely rare conditions into binary sports, androgenized puberty is usually the deciding factor. Swyer does not trigger male puberty, De la Chapelle does, and hormone therapy is normally part of the health care for people with either syndrome.
I get defensive because, unfortunately for those with DSDs, these extremely rare conditions are trotted out routinely by gender ideologues as a reason to have no eligibility criteria for the female sports category. That a binary system accommodates most people is an understatement, including those who identify as nonbinary or the opposite sex or the oft referred to but never named third, fourth, fifth sexes. The vast majority of people with trans identities are unambiguously male or female. DSDs have been callously used by activists to "prove" that sex is too complicated, and therefore the women's category should be self-ID. Absurd. Cheek swabs protect female sports, and in the miniscule number of people with DSDs, provide valuable information for their future life in and out of sports. And again, a binary sports system accommodates people with Swyer or De la Chapelle syndromes.
The figures I have seen are that 85-90% of men putting on woman face bring not just their dick brains with them but also their cherished dicks which make them real dicks. I think the more that information is out there the more concern people will have. The move from transsexual to transgender was not realized by many people and I count myself in that. I originally thought it was just a change in terms.
It is one thing for males to argue they should be able to compete as females - after all it is fun for mediocre males to win as a woman- but to see a female who pretends to know something about sport promote against her own sex. That is really pathetic. Wade's parents mus be so proud.
What motivates those women to act against the interests of real women? Do they have savior complexes that have run amok? Have they fully bought into gender identity ideology and trans propaganda to the point where they have lost their ability to reason? Do they suffer from internalized misogyny?
Some yes.
Many yes.
Some perhaps.
Moreover, there has been much social and professional/financial approbation (“stunning & brave” can also pay the bills) available to those who have been willing to promote this corporately-sponsored and male-driven top-down inversion of biological reality & deprecation of women’s and children’s rights — and those men are absolutely misogynists and/or AGPs, though I repeat myself.
Yes and a history of Democrats (and women) supporting the underdogs - in a misguided, uneducated way, in this instance.
They or someone close to them in the sport is a male competing in the female category
Yes, or trans-identified friends and relatives.
Thank you so much for addressing Wade for expressing opinions as facts, for pointing out her lying by omission, and for calling out her inaccuracies regarding women's sports. How she and Erin Strout were ever seen as supporters of women when they both advocate for men in women's sports is beyond me, but virtue signalers are gonna signal.
Supporters of “women”, not female persons.
Wade’s entire career comes from her sporting opportunities without males yet she now advocates to throw away these same opportunities for other young women. She shows no self-reflection or concern for other females. Laughably, we wouldn’t even know her name if she had competed against males, oh the irony. Wade’s behavior is deplorable.
Great article Sarah. When the facts are inconvenient for someone such as Wade, they either ignore then and/or simply claim that their opinions are fact based . Their dishonesty should always be called out publicly.
Wade would not be moved one iota with the story of three males taking podium spots in the Women's 800m at the 2016 Olympics. She would almost certainly describe them as "ciswomen with naturally high testosterone."
Wade's other coverage of women's running is so good. For the life of me, I can not understand why she is willing to die a "Groundhog Day" number of deaths on the hill of allowing males to compete in women's sports. It's insane.
Very well argued, Sarah!
Thank you for the reference to my work and THANKS for exposing Wade as the anti-female-in-sport activist that she is.
The public is being educated in real time and I am here for it.
FINALLY!
I shall post this article on X, for sure.
Keep at it. We are so close to cleaning up this 25-year mess in women's sports.
The IOC stance makes sense if you first assume that it doesn’t care about the quality of competition - it just wants competitions to take place so it can rake in money. The bureaucracy then isn’t interested in ultimate questions of fairness or safety, only “ will there be lots of competitors?” Dope testing wasn’t introduced until 1968, after multiple athletic organisations had already introduced it. Maybe this is the same process, but over a much longer time.
At the provided link there is a photo of “Reo (now Rose) Eveleth” — he looks unmistakably like a male. No surprise there. Another pushy ex-man.
There's no such thing as an ex-man. That's the whole point of keeping their dumb asses out of our sports and our locker rooms.
Thanks, Sarah.
I am a NYC former competitive athlete here.
It is the height of misogyny to deny the existence of the female sex that excludes male biology.
And, you're right "biology" is a bad word to these misogynists. As author Lisa Shultz has pointed out: "Biology is NOT bigotry".
Whenever possible in public forums, we have to ensure that their "transmafia" voices are NOT the only voices to be heard
That's why I go every month to NYC Community Education District 2 meetings. For the last 2 months, I have been the only voice of reality there as the transmob comes out in full force for their public speaking sessions.
I have gotten mainstream media press for this. I have posted this Link below before, but I am reposting the Fox News write-up of this. I am the one who calls the transmafia "baby bullies" and it includes more excerpts from my speech:
LINK:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/trans-rights-activists-bizarrely-perform-silent-macarena-dance-new-york-city-education-meeting
MY PERSONAL EMAIL for anyone like-minded who wants to reach out:
JoannaVitalHealth@protonmail.com
Why is Wade so in love with the trans cult? She appears to have a real thing for Nikki Hiltz.
Why is Wade so in love with the trans cult? She is absolutely bonkers over Nikki Hiltz.
Tied for fifth! That in and of itself is like winning the ultra, ultra, ultra consolation prize. Wow...what happened to the top three and no more ribbons? Oh, it's Maine? Never mind...
Did she qualify? No.
Did she take a medal away from anyone else? No.
Did her competitors embrace her? Yes.
That hate will eat you up inside.
I wish you well.
NCAA states that out of over 500,000 collegiate athletes, there are 10 or less transgender athletes. Could you do us a favor and just write them all a letter instead of airing your bigotry out on Substack? Kthx
Since the NCAA does not require student athletes to reveal their birth sex, and accepts whatever sex marker is on a student athlete's changeable birth certificate, the NCAA has no idea how many transgender athletes are competing in the NCAA.
If the NCAA knew there were 10 student athletes who were doping, or competing in an age or weight category for which they were not eligible, would that be just fine? If the media also was fully aware that the NCAA was allowing 10 student athletes to compete in the wrong sorts category or to compete while taking testosterone or EPO, would that be just fine? Because it's only ten? As I mentioned, the NCAA has no idea how many trans athletes are competing. What if that number was 20, or 3, or 100? What's the threshold for athletes competing in a category they are not eligible for? Defining and defending a category is an inclusion strategy, in the case I'm talking about, an inclusion strategy for women. If we don't define and defend the women's category, it ceases to exist. That's not bigotry; that's women's rights to their own sport.
Which test would you want to see used? Chromosomal? Genetic? Hormonal?
Would you be in favor of a testing regimen that excluded some competitors who were identified at birth as female, and looked like girls/women?
Ten minutes ago, as I'm sure you know but are pretending not to, we had male and female sports and everyone knew what sex they were, just as they do now. I would prefer to simply rely on the fact that we all know what sex we are, and have enough respect and honor to participate in the correct sex category. But since men have been told/demanded that they can compete according to their gender identity, noninvasive, once-in-a-lifetime cheek swabs will identify sex accurately in 99% of people. Actually more than 99%. Cheek swabs will also flag the .018% of people with a Disorder of Sexual Development, who are either male or female but with a genetic disorder, as the name implies. Some people with DSDs were literally assigned female at birth based on external genitalia, but actually have internal functioning testes and XY chromosomes, so are male. That's why testing for the SRY gene is more accurate than whether F or M is on the birth certificate (to say nothing of the fact that sex markers on birth certificates can be changed in 44 states inthe US. Not accurate. Sex screening eliminates the possibility of ANYONE EVER being kept out of women's sports because of her appearance. If you are obliquely referring to athletes like Caster Semenya, Semenya was not barred from women's sports because he did not look female enough, Semenya was barred because he is male. Sex screening made that call
I'm not pretending anything, nor obliquely referring. I'm sincerely asking what you think the answer should be, and how you feel about the implications.
Part of my question, in fact, turns on that "everyone knew" paradigm.
So you've said you prefer the SRY genetic screen, rather than a chromosomal, hormonal, or physical (external sex characteristics) test. Or, obviously, a legal or social identification.
I think everybody understands that, for *most* people, all six of these would 'agree' in a binary sorting. So the entire conversation is always about edge cases, where not all possible markers match, and how to reconcile those people with a binary system like gendered competition.
The second part of my question above, in light of your answer to the first, is: how do you feel about the (few, but non-zero) people who would 'fail' an SRY screen for femaleness (e.g., the SRY gene is present on an X chromosome, as in Swyer Syndrome), but "everyone knew" were girls? Unless I am reading you incorrectly, you are saying that such a person "is male," even though this will be a surprise to everyone including themselves. (Would you want to be the one telling that kid they're not a girl?)
Conversely, an SRY-negative De la Chapelle Syndrome individual would 'pass' the same screen and "is female" - despite (possibly) having been identified as male from birth, and having (some degree of) male physical expression.
You are far more informed than I am about chromosomal anomalies. Of course, it would be difficult to deliver the news of Swyer Syndrome or De la Chapelle, but does that mean it would be better if that person did not have that information? Since those conditions have implications for future health care for that person? In developed countries, these conditions would likely come to light before a cheek swab for sports purposes.
As far as "reconciling" people with these extremely rare conditions into binary sports, androgenized puberty is usually the deciding factor. Swyer does not trigger male puberty, De la Chapelle does, and hormone therapy is normally part of the health care for people with either syndrome.
I get defensive because, unfortunately for those with DSDs, these extremely rare conditions are trotted out routinely by gender ideologues as a reason to have no eligibility criteria for the female sports category. That a binary system accommodates most people is an understatement, including those who identify as nonbinary or the opposite sex or the oft referred to but never named third, fourth, fifth sexes. The vast majority of people with trans identities are unambiguously male or female. DSDs have been callously used by activists to "prove" that sex is too complicated, and therefore the women's category should be self-ID. Absurd. Cheek swabs protect female sports, and in the miniscule number of people with DSDs, provide valuable information for their future life in and out of sports. And again, a binary sports system accommodates people with Swyer or De la Chapelle syndromes.
Carole Hooven wrote an excellent piece in the Boston Globe that references binary sex, https://archive.ph/2025.02.20-110232/https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/02/20/opinion/trump-executive-order-two-sexes/
The figures I have seen are that 85-90% of men putting on woman face bring not just their dick brains with them but also their cherished dicks which make them real dicks. I think the more that information is out there the more concern people will have. The move from transsexual to transgender was not realized by many people and I count myself in that. I originally thought it was just a change in terms.