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?
it's only words 