I doubt it. I doubt if anything can be more ethically and logically muddled than the article —actually two articles—about another biological male crushing female competitors in a women’s sports competition. Right at the start, the USA Today piece sets a new absurd bar for “It isn’t what it is” rhetoric. The article begins, “The sentiment is universal: Everyone agrees that Andraya Yearwood should be allowed to compete in her chosen races as a girl.”
Wait: the same article in its headline says that Yearwood’s eligibility is a matter of “controversy.” If there is controversy, then obviously the sentiment isn’t “universal.” Normally, a statement that self-evidently contradictory would make me stop reading because the writer is an idiot, but I read this junk so you won’t have to.
The next sentence is just as bad:
After all, she identifies as a girl, trains alongside fellow females and plans to eventually undergo hormone therapy to complete a transition from her male birth gender to female.
“After all’? None of that is convincing proof that a biological male should be competing against women. Then Cam Smith—that’s the name of the idiot, whom USA Today entrusts with High School sports stories—gets the Triple Crown, or a hat trick, or whatever you call three brain-melting statements in a row:
What is much harder to determine, as outlined beautifully in this Hartford Courant piece by Jeff Jacobs, is whether her competing as a girl in the Class M state track and field meet was fair.
Uh, Cam? If it isn’t fair, then Yearwood should not be allowed to compete, and may I add, “Duh.”
As for the “beautifully outlined” article, it’s just as as bad as Cam’s, indeed worse. Do you doubt me? For example, Jacobs writes,
Andraya Yearwood identifies as a girl. She is recognized by her school district as a girl. Those are the parameters of the CIAC rules. They are clear. Andraya should be able to compete as a girl. The question of what is fair competitively is nuanced and difficult….The CIAC handbook points to applicable state and federal laws. In 2011, the state legislature extended the scope of Connecticut’s anti-discrimination laws to prohibit discrimination on the basis of “gender identity or expression.” It’s a civil right.
There is a civil right for men to compete against women in women’s sports? No there isn’t. Nor is it “discrimination” to hold that only biological women should compete in women’s competitions. The fact that Woke World ideologues ( as well as weenies and cowards terrified of being attacked as bigots) have allowed this unfair situation to develop doesn’t make it an ethical result. Then Jacobs writes,
After the Trump administration rolled back some guidelines, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy signed an executive order in February ensuring that the rights of transgender students receiving an education continue uninterrupted.
All of this is to be applauded.
Why should “all this” be “applauded” if it is unfair and makes no sense? And why would telling a biological male student that he-now-identifying-as-she won’t be allowed to make a joke out of women’s sports competitions interfere with that student’s “education”? I didn’t participate in any school sports in high school or college, and my education was pretty damn good. At least I can identify poorly reasoned crap when I see it. Maybe if I had identified as a girl, it would have been better, but I doubt that
The hits just keep on coming for this (according to USA Today) brilliant analysis:
Yearwood, who has yet to undergo any hormonal treatment on the long process toward sex reassignment surgery, sprinted faster than anyone else for two state class titles. Was it fair? On a biologically competitive basis, it was not.
Then it was not fair, period. Because it was not fair, Yearwood should not have been allowed to compete. Of course. But Jacobs, like Smith can’t face reality, or basic ethics. So Jacobs blathers on, determined to double-talk his way out of an unavoidable conclusion. He quotes Yearwood’s father:
“As her father, I never think about it as competition. This is not about winning and losing races. This is about the health of my teenage daughter. In terms of the fairness aspect, I don’t think about that as a father. I only think about, is my daughter happy, healthy and able to participate in what she wants to do? I don’t care if she wins or loses. I don’t care if she wins and gives the medals back. She got to compete as a girl where she feels she should compete. That’s all that matters to me.”
Wow, that helps a lot. The father of the male claiming to be a girl doesn’t care whether anything is fair, as long as it makes his daughter happy. How is his completely bias- and emotion-driven attitude remotely relevant to the issue? The same kind of statement could be used to “justify” armed robbery, or child rape. I guess the father’s “reasoning” helps explain why his son/daughter has no qualms about cheating.
Someone, make him stop! But Jacobs goes on and on with one rationalization, illogical conclusion, fallacy and non sequitur after another:
- “The International Olympic Committee last year adopted a policy that removed the need for women to undergo sex-reassignment surgery to compete. The waiting period went from two years after surgery to one year after the start of hormone replacement theory. This matches up with NCAA rules.”
“Everybody does it,” plain and simple, plus an appeal to authority. These were decisions driven by political correctness and politics.
- “Transgender boys and girls, some of whom are rejected by families and those around them, have been documented to have more suicide attempts and substance abuse. Their inclusion in high school sports is paramount. Their feelings must be honored.”
What? They must be allowed to unfairly excel in women’s sports because they might kill themselves otherwise? By what reasoning must “their feelings” be “honored”? This is New Age nonsense at its worse. Feelings do not create mandates on public policy or the conduct of others, particularly eccentric or unjustifiable feelings.
I guess some of the female competitors who are unfairly defeated better get busy and start their suicide attempts so they can have their “feelings” respected too.
- “For me, somebody who has observed sports and written about all kinds of athletes for four decades, the integrity of the state competition for these two races Tuesday was compromised.”
Than why are you blathering on like this? Sporting events without integrity are fraudulent. They cheat the athletes and spectators. They contradict the entire purpose of sport.
- “In (second place finisher) Hall’s case…Stonington coach Ben Bowne said. ‘She works really hard. She’s a very competitive athlete. She hates losing to anybody. I’ve just told her all year run your best. If this girl has better times than you, she’s going to help you as a runner. That’s what we focused on.”
Oh! Then why not have the men’s team compete against your women all the time, coach? After all, it will make them better runners! Then Jacobs quotes Hall…
- “From what I know she is really nice and that’s all that matters. She’s not rude and obnoxious.”
That’s all that matters! As long as you’re nice about it, cheating is OK.
Jacobs’ article as well as Smith’s are either the product of an ethically handicapped culture incapable of critical thinking, or are guaranteed to create one.