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

 

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.

 

I will not cede the moral high ground to people who looked the other way

Here’s what Patty Murray had to say about serial sex predator and killer of Mary Jo Kopechne, Ted Kennedy upon his death:

When I was young Ted Kennedy was larger than life. I could not believe it when I first walked out on the floor of the Senate and he walked over to welcome me. From that day on, he became a valued friend, a courageous partner, and a personal mentor.

From my earliest memories in the Senate when I watched him patiently and passionately argue to pass the Family and Medical Leave Act, to his last moments when he led the charge to pass legislation that guaranteed equal pay for women and encouraged Americans to serve and give back to their country as he did, Ted never once stopped fighting for those who couldn’t fight for themselves. [Unless, perhaps, they were drowning in his submerged vehicle] The country is indeed a better place because of him.

His loss is very personal to me. I will miss him. Our country will miss him.

I’m sure Mary Jo Kopechne’s family misses her, too, but, you know, acceptable losses.

And here’s what Murray had to say during the Senate impeachment hearings for Bill Clinton:

This President’s behavior was reprehensible, but it does not threaten our nation. In the past year, despite the scandal that ran on the front page nearly every day, our country has prospered. Our economy is growing. Our waters and air are cleaner. Our communities are safer. Our education system is stronger. America is not poised on the brink of disaster. Our democracy is safe.

I wonder if Roy Moore’s actions from 40 years ago threaten our nation.

And here’s what Claire McCaskill said about Ted Kennedy:

This man was so much more than his image. While his vision soared, the power of his personality and the magnet of his intellect drew his colleagues to the table of compromise. It was there he did his best work. His love for the little guy and his affection for the underdog influenced everything he did. [Ah, yes…the little guy. And gal. Especially waitresses.] And importantly, his sense of humor and contagious laughter made him real and approachable in spite of his power and privilege.

Mmm-hmmm…I’m sure Carla Gaviglio thinks about his infectious laughter every time she remembers the “waitress sandwich” prank. Hilarious!

Let me clarify something right here. I am not defending or excusing any past behavior on the part of Judge Roy Moore.

But.

Patty Murray and Claire McCaskill, who gave Ted Kennedy a pass on a lifetime of predation, are going to have a say in whether or not Roy Moore will be seated in the Senate, should he win election.

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, they have to say. I, for one, am not looking forward to being lectured to, from their supposed moral high ground, on the moral moral implications of seating Roy Moore from women who gave Ted Kennedy and/or Bill Clinton a pass on a lifetime of sexual predation.

H/T American Thinker

Important Information No Self-Respecting Person Should Be Without

The chronological order of the Derinyi novels by Katherine Kurtz.

• Camber of Culdi
• Saint Camber
• Camber the Heretic
• The Harrowing of Gwynedd
• King Javan’s Year
• The Bastard Prince
• Deryni Tales
• The Childe Morgan
• The King’s Deryni
• Deryni Rising
• Deryni Checkmate
• High Deryni
• The Bishop’s Heir
• The King’s Justice
• The Quest for Saint Camber
• King Kelson’s Bride

Open Letter to State Senator Guy Palumbo

Dear Senator Palumbo:

I see you have introduced legislation for a new carbon tax. I find this disturbing but unsurprising.

Leaving aside the question of whether or not a tax on carbon is justified or beneficial, I wonder if there is an upper limit on the amount of money you think is fair to confiscate from Washington residents. I’ve posed this question to you numerous times on Twitter, but, having received no response, am asking again: How much of a person’s labor do you think the government is entitled to? One third? One half? Three quarters?

I realize this may sound like a trick question, but I think it’s fair and should be asked of every elected official. If you don’t have an upper limit in mind, how do you know when citizens have been taxed enough? And if you do have one in mind, don’t you think your constituents are entitled to know where it’s set?

Every tax is ultimately paid by individual taxpayers, whether it’s a direct tax such as sales or property tax, or indirect, such as the B&O tax. Your proposed carbon tax is no different.

I would appreciate a response.