EDITORS' CORNER
OPINION: They’re never going to convince everyday Americans that biological men should play on women’s sports teams.
It’s been almost two weeks since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. which allows states to ban biological males — or “trans females” — from competing on (biological) female sports teams.
If ever there was an issue that separates the common sense-adhering general public from the critical-theorizing academy — a so-called “80-20″ issue, if you will — this is it.
It’s also an example of what Gad Saad calls “suicidal empathy.” Taken by itself, no, allowing men to compete as women won’t collapse our society; however, the mindset behind such certainly will. If we let it.
Consider how the University of Vermont’s Felicia Kornbluh (who researches “the histories of feminism, gender, social welfare, disability, law, Jews in the United States, and reproductive politics”) reacted to the SCOTUS decision.
Kornbluh (pictured) said the ruling by the court’s “far-right supermajority” maintained a “cisgender” social/cultural/political advantage similar to that enjoyed by the country’s white majority:
“[E]very gain for trans women is an intolerable loss for cisgender women. Don’t change the system, bake a bigger pie, or share access or resources, he suggests. Just make sure my girls get theirs.”
As could be predicted, the plural pronoun-using Kornbluh appealed to the feelings and emotional well-being of trans females: C’mon, parent of a typical middle/high school sports-playing daughter, we’re “not talking here about million-dollar contracts with the WNBA” or “a scholarship to Boise State.”
(This is akin to women’s soccer star Megan Rapinoe’s sentiments.)
Kornbluh also chided parents who push their kids to do well in youth sports:
“Generally speaking, the varsity sports world in overwhelmingly white suburbs like the one in which I live is not about fighting for children’s opportunity to be assessed neutrally on the basis of their discipline and physical prowess. It’s about winning, no matter what” (emphasis added).
“They” concluded that these cases “build a legal McMansion in service of both gendered and sex-based inequality. They emanate from an anguished white upper middle class that can’t see past its own hypercompetitive and self-regarding present.”
Syracuse University’s George Theoharis, who researches “equity and social justice” and “inclusive education and teacher preparation,” said that “as a former teacher, a former principal, a former coach, and now an education professor, this [SCOTUS] ruling is painful.”
Theoharis claimed the ruling is based on “four fallacies”: that trans girls are “misrepresenting their gender identity,” “the harm of exclusion is acceptable,” trans-female bans “protect girls,” and trans-female participation in girls’ sports “represents an urgent fairness crisis in school sports.”
Like Kornbluh, Theoharis said the whole issue isn’t that big a deal since the number of trans athletes is so low. Sillier is his contention that the contemporary “breadth of research” actually challenges basic biology.
Several University of Pennsylvania professors weighed in as well; the never-shy-about-speaking-out Jonathan Zimmerman said those in the UPenn community “need to re-engage” in discussions about how “transgender athletes should be allowed to compete,” which he claims were halted by the Trump administration.
Amanda Shanor, a professor of legal studies and business ethics and a former ACLU lawyer, worried if the sex distinctions made by the SCOTUS are “spun out into other contexts, it would undo all of sex discrimination law.”
She also said biological females could end up getting “questioned about their gender presentation” (emphasis added).
UPenn Gender, Sexuality & Women’s Studies Program Associate Director Gwendolyn Beetham said the decision would have a “devastating effect on young trans people around the country” and shows a “lack of concern for young people’s health and wellbeing.”
Beetham added UPenn should declare that “trans students are supported” and “will not be discriminated against in any […] as soon as possible.”
I’d say it’s amazing that Syracuse’s Theoharis was once a principal, but unfortunately today he’s more the norm rather than the exception. It’s a fallacy that trans-females are “misrepresenting” that they’re trans? Perhaps not in all cases, but studies do show transgenderism seems to be something of a fad.
His “harm of exclusion” being “acceptable” claim is what has contributed to the behavioral chaos and teacher flight we now see in our (mainly) public schools — as “punitive” disciplinary measures like suspensions and detentions are eschewed in favor of “restorative” practices like “talking things out.” (Indeed, there’s nothing teachers and attentive children want more than asking a perpetually disruptive and abusive student how he feels.)
Logically, this mindset also poo-poos girls’ complaints about biological boys being allowed in their bathrooms and locker rooms, and we’ve already seen instances of school administrators chiding the girls for their alleged intolerance.
Don’t fall for this stuff. Don’t allow it.
MORE: Keep sticking with those ’80-20′ issues, progressives. It’s working so well
