In Which I Write About Forcing Girls to Compete With Boys…Again

Some issues with this article from the New York Post.

Quick background: Two boys, Athena Ryan and Lorelei Barrett, who identify as girls qualified to run in the California State preliminary Track and Field Championship.

First issue. “Ryan, a junior, finished in second place as protests formed, calling her participation in the competition unfair to the other girls.”

This isn’t unfair to “other girls.” It’s unfair to “girls.” Because Ryan and Barrett are “boys.”

I’ve previously written at length about the many physiological competitive advantages that human males have over human females. I’ll recap here.

• a larger heart and lungs in relation to body size
• longer and larger bones for greater leverage and a better framework for muscle mass
• greater muscle mass in relation to body weight
• higher proportion of fast-twitch muscle cells
• better hand-eye coordination

Most of these traits will not be affected by hormone therapy (or will be minimally affected), especially for those who have gone through male puberty. Which is why it is INSANE to set policies that use hormone replacement therapy as a criteria for competition.

Second issue. The article never mentions that there were girls who lost the opportunity to compete because of the participation of these boys at the district level. Ryan finished second in his district meet, where the top three athletes qualified to advance to state-level competition. In doing so, he denied Adeline Johnson, a senior and the fourth place finisher, the opportunity to compete in the state preliminary meet. It’s safe to assume that Barrett also denied a girl the chance to compete at the higher level.

Third issue. The California Interscholastic Federation rule is quoted as saying, “All students should have the opportunity to participate in CIF athletics and/or activities in a manner that is consistent with their gender identity,” and the CIF’s Associate Executive Director, Brian Seymour, is quoted as saying, “All of our athletes, all the eligible athletes, are afforded the opportunity to compete with the gender they feel most comfortable with.”

The CIF rule, and the statement from Seymour, strongly imply that not allowing trans-identifying boys to compete in girl’s sports would preclude them from any participation in sports, and the Post doesn’t make any effort to dispel that. However, the trans-identifying boys could simply continue to compete in boy’s sports. Why wouldn’t they just continue to do that?

The obvious answer is that they wouldn’t have been competitive in boy’s events. Let’s take a look at Ryan’s and Barrett’s best times from 2023 and compare them to times from the CIF state championship meet.

Athena Ryan

	Personal Best	CIF Winning Time Boys/Girls	CIF Eighth Place Time Boys/Girls
800 meters	2:23.59	1:52.06/2:07.22	1:56.31/2:14.93
1600 meters	4:55.91	4:08.64/4:33.45	4:18.23/4:54.31

Lorelei Barrett

	Personal Best	CIF Winning Time Boys/Girls	CIF Eighth PlaceTime Boys/Girl’s
1600 meters	4:49.66	4:08.64/4:33.45	4:18.23/4:54.31
3200 meters	10:58.40	8:51.37/10:02.19	9:01.09/10:26.22

So as you can see, while both Ryan and Barrett wouldn’t have placed in any of the boy’s events (or even qualified for the meet), they had a strong likelihood of placing as girls, which would have displaced actual, biological girls. Maybe this doesn’t seem like a big deal to you, but scholarship opportunities ride on the results of state high school competitions.

You’ll also notice the disparity between the boy’s and girl’s times. The girl’s times are slower, and drop off faster from first to eighth. Uless you perversely believe that female athletes don’t train as hard or care as much as male athletes (in which case you’re a disgusting bigot) it’s immediately apparent that boys must have significant advantages over girls.

I first wrote about this topic back on June 10, 2017, and here I am still writing about it six years later. Why?

Parental Rights Are Dead in Washington State

If you live in Washington, you may have heard of SB5599. This piece of legislation was signed into law yesterday by Governor Jay Inslee.

Under the provisions of 5599, minors can run away from home, present themselves at a youth shelter and ask for gender affirming care. The shelter is not compelled by law to notify the parents of the location or even the safety status of their child, and the state will provide whatever gender affirming care the minor requests and/or the State deems appropriate.

You might assume that this would apply only to parents who were somehow abusive to their child, but the law applies equally to loving, non-abusive parents, who are then left to wonder and worry about their child’s safety.

The AP’s new reporter for Washington statehouse news, Ed Komenda, chose to characterize the law like this:

“Minors seeking gender-affirming care in Washington will be protected from the intervention of estranged parents under a measure Gov. Jay Inslee signed into law Tuesday.”

They will be “protected” from loving parents. This is one of the most egregiously biased takes I’ve ever seen; keep it in mind when reading any future articles from Mr. Komenda.

I would characterize it differently. It usurps parental custody without due process or any evidence that the parents are somehow unfit. It makes a mockery of the natural right of the parent to decide what is best for their child.

The Seattle Times headline (above is especially awful. I say awful only because I can’t think of a word bad enough to describe how bad it is. Why wouldn’t people believe that the law would apply only to abusive parents?

You may not consider “gender affirming care” of minors to be a particularly important issue, or you may agree that minors should have the right to decide this free from “parental intervention.” Keep in mind, though, that once the State establishes a right to remove children from the custody of loving parents for *this* reason, they can remove them for *any* reason.

Something new for me

No, not bashing the Seattle Times. I’ve been known to do that a from time to time. What was new for me was rolling out a coordinated Twitter rant, or thread if you will, on this incomprehensibly biased piece of reporting at the Seattle Times.

I was really surprised about how hard it was to prepare and how nervous I was about posting it. Have a look, leave a comment and retweet!

This is the most brazenly biased piece of so-called reporting I ever remember seeing in the @SeattleTimes. Stay with me.https://t.co/utQrF5loTZ

— It's Only Words (@itsonlywords) January 6, 2020

 

Conservatives are to blame! Again!

Her’s something new that “experts” are blaming on “conservative ideas.” This time it’s the rise of syphilis. It’s rising in rural areas, supposedly due to a lack of access to health care and conservative ideas about sex.

Hm. Funny. I guess I just didn’t realize that promiscuity was a conservative idea.

Of course it’s not. If we were really talking about conservative attitudes about sex, STD rates would be falling, because those attitudes about sex include saving it for marriage and not sleeping around.

Here’s how the the Daily Mail explains it:

In small towns people might be afraid of seeing a doctor they know personally, or doctors who have never seen syphilis before may struggle to diagnose it, experts suggest.
….
Experts believe this could be because people in the country have less access to healthcare, less knowledge of sexually transmitted diseases, and potentially more conservative opinions on sex outside of marriage or gay sex, KHN reports.

And, in small towns, people’s embarrassment may be made worse by having to see a doctor who is also their Sunday school teacher or knows members of their family.

I’m unclear on who, exactly, the experts are that came up with “conservative ideas about sex are to blame for rising syphilis rates,” but if they had taken a look at their own map, they’d have noticed that the state with the lowest rate is Wyoming. Last time I checked, Wyoming wasn’t considered to be a bastion of progressive thought and it’s also mostly rural, yet they’re somehow managing to hold the line on syphilis.

They might also have noticed that California and New York are among the states with the highest rates. Correct me if I’m wrong, but California and New York are also among the most liberal states. And Nevada? Hey, what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas, unless you take home a nice case of syphilis as a souvenir. Apparently.

If you read the article, you’ll also notice the thinly veiled contempt the [experts or the author of the article, Sam Blanchard; not sure which] have for rural residents. They’re too stupid understand that sexually transmitted diseases are, in fact, sexually transmitted. Rural doctors must surely be the dregs of the medical world because, really, who else would actually choose to live outside of a major city?

Here’s the deal. The only thing driving rising STD rates is promiscuity, and I think we all know that it’s the left, not the right, pushing the idea that promiscuous sex is free. It’s not and rising STD rates are only part of the cost. To claim that conservative attitudes about sex are a primary driver is dishonest and counter-productive.

But as long as the “experts” can get away with saying this is the fault of conservatives, they can continue to use it to flog their favorite whipping boy.

 

Congratulations!

Do you support abortion on demand during all nine months of pregnancy, or even after birth if a baby is so fortunate as to survive an abortion procedure? Congratulations! Today’s Democrat Party wants you!

Do you love the river of human misery that flows across our southern border? The sex trafficking, drugs, and potential terrorists? Congratulations! Today’s Democrat Party wants you!

You believe it’s no big thing, and nothing bad could possibly happen (it’s transphobic to even suggest otherwise!), for men to share locker rooms and restrooms with women and girls. Congratulations! Today’s Democrat Party wants you!

Are you a closet Anti-Semite, yearning to be free? Do you support the BDS Movement? Is “Cherchez la Juive” your guiding principle? Are the terrorists lobbing bombs from Gaza into Israel the real victims? Congratulations! Today’s Democrat Party wants you!

Do you prefer to pay more, rather than less, for fuel for your car? How about to heat your home? Higher energy costs are going to save the planet, right? Congratulations! Today’s Democrat Party wants you!

Are you going to forego having children because their lives will suck anyway because of global warming? Assuming the world hasn’t ended in 2031? Congratulations! Today’s Democrat Party wants you!

Do you feel the Bern? Socialism is, like, awesome, right? They just did it wrong in Venezuela! Congratulations! Today’s Democrat Party wants you!

Congratulations! You support the most extreme positions in U.S. politics today and the Democrat Party already owns you!

Who Does She Intend to Represent?

Lisa Brown is so busy with fundraising events in Western Washington that she apparently can’t be bothered to meet with people in the district she claims she wants to represent.

You’d think she’d want to be spending the last few weeks of her campaign speaking with future constituents and hearing about their concerns, not angling for liberal dollars on the opposite side of the state, but you’d be wrong. So who does she intend to represent?

A Public-funded Witch Hunt at CWU

This blog has not been kind to Matt Manweller. Several years ago, he penned an opinion piece that appeared in the Seattle Times that was, well, perplexing. I was a fairly new blogger then and my response may have been unreasonably harsh. So it was only fitting (Karma is a bitch, after all) that I would end up voting in Washington’s 13th legislative district and being represented in Olympia by none other than Matt Manweller.

I’ve been mostly happy with his work in Olympia. I haven’t agreed with every vote, but for the most part, he represents me well. Make no mistake, I’ve seen this guy speak in person and he is very, very smart and very, very articulate. So I can understand why leftist progressives would like him ousted at CWU and out of the state legislature. But the witch hunt being carried at at Central defies logic.

Either there are allegations of inappropriate behavior against someone or there aren’t. Under no circumstances that I can imagine is it acceptable for a university to use $120,000 of taxpayer money to hire an investigator to go looking for allegations, but that seems to be what has happened here.

Manweller is hitting back and his response is compelling.

 

9:54 pm:

P.S. (Or, More About Lisa Brown)

It’s come to my attention that Lisa Brown objects to being called “Liberal Lisa.”

Leaving that aside for a moment, this tweet is so unfair and so calculatedly misleading that I was left momentarily speechless when I first saw it. At a glance, a person could be forgiven for believing that Cathy McMorris Rodgers had referenced “Sleepy Joe Biden” and “Pocahontas” Liz Warren. Herself. Like actually said those words. Which is laughable, but exactly the impression that Brown wanted to leave with people.

Now that I’ve got that out of my system, let’s get back to Brown’s complaint about being called “Liberal Lisa.” I’m sure that she’s worried about voters outside her “Downtown” constituency finding out about her liberal predilections, but I’m confused as to why she considers it an insult to be called, rightfully, liberal. (God knows she’s no conservative.) Maybe she’d prefer “Leftist Lisa,” or “Progressive Lisa.”

After yesterday’s post, I’m leaning towards “Lying Lisa.”

Lisa Brown: Letting Others Collect Tainted Money for Her

I don’t particularly care if politicians take money from corporations; my feeling is that corporations have a right to protect their interests. But it appears to be a big, freaking deal to Democrat Lisa Brown. Enough so that she made a scary “dark money” video for her campaign, criticizing her opponent, Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, for accepting money from Paul Ryan’s PAC and declaring that she doesn’t take corporate PAC money. Period.

But is that really true? The answer is…not so much.

For example, Brown’s campaign received $5,000 from Nancy Pelosi’s PAC to the Future. PAC to the Future has accepted donations from numerous corporate PACs, including (but not limited to):

• Amgen
• Burlington Northern
• Lowe’s
• New York Life
• Microsoft
• Google
• Blue Cross Blue Shield
• Mednax
• AFLAC
• Hewlett Packard
• Torchmark

She’s also received a $1,000 donation from the New Democrat Coalition PAC, which has received donations from various corporations, including:

• Walmart
• Cardinal Health
• Metlife
• Humana
• Molina Healthcare
• Target
• New York Life
• And so on…

I could go on, because of the 39 PACs that have made donations to her campaign, at least 15 have accepted money from corporate PACs. And that, according to Lisa, is “exactly what’s wrong with this Congress.”

Like I said, I don’t particularly care if Lisa Brown accepts money from corporate PACs. But I care if she lies about it, which she clearly is. And she thinks WA-05 voters are too stupid to notice.

If she’s willing to lie about where her campaign cash is coming from in order to get elected, what would she be willing to lie about if she were elected?

This is what Brown needs to remember. Money is fungible. Money from a tainted source is tainted money.

And we’re not that stupid.

 

Forcing Girls to Compete Against Boys Is a Biological Outrage

Indulge me while I share a personal story.

My youngest daughter started swim lessons just after she turned six and spent two full sessions (in other words, 20 swim lessons) sitting on the side of the pool. Yep, that’s right. She wouldn’t even get in the water, much less put her face in it. Thankfully, her third class was taught by an extremely gifted and understanding teenager, Janelle, who, by the end of two weeks, had her in the water and dunking her face.

Two more sessions with Janelle and she was swimming with her face in the water, learning alternate side breathing, and backstroke. Because of my former life as a swim coach’s wife, it was obvious to me from the first stroke she took on her back that she had a natural feel for the water.

By the time she was eight, I felt she was ready for more than lessons and she joined the local age group swim team. From the start, she displayed an exceptional work ethic and did well, despite the distinct disadvantage of being, well, short (more on this later).

Now about the same time my daughter joined swim team, there was a boy, who I’ll call David (NOT his real name) who also joined. He was tall for his age, but didn’t work at it especially hard. Or hard at all, really. When I say that, I mean there was a lot of goofing off and cheating on time intervals in practice. I don’t mean this is a bad way; he was a little boy and acted accordingly. Despite his lack of effort, for either conditioning or improving his strokes, he also did reasonably well, although for several years, due to her hard work and natural talent, my daughter could beat him in many races.

Fast forward to their teen years…my daughter was still working hard, and her hard work paid off with state meet qualifications. David was still goofing off in practice and his strokes were still – how can I say this delicately – total crap, but he could easily beat my daughter – and every other girl on the swim team – in sprint events, and even some of the longer events. He was 6’4″ tall and had the advantage of some voodoo physics involving the relative drag exerted on long as opposed to short bodies in the water. His other advantages included:

• a larger heart and lungs in relation to body size
• longer and larger bones for greater leverage and a better framework for muscle mass
• greater muscle mass in relation to body weight
• higher proportion of fast-twitch muscle cells

These are advantages that all boys share over girls. Yes, at younger ages, girls often overcome them for various reasons, but the fastest boys will always be faster than the fastest girls.

My daughter and her swimming friends often lamented the unfairness represented by David, but at least they had the consolation of not being forced to compete against him (and then share a locker room with him!).  How tragic it is that these girls in Connecticut don’t have that consolation.

I’ve written about this topic before.