A tiny residue

The Times asks a silly question: Who Should Compete in Women’s Sports?

The answer is in the question. Women, duh.

But the full title is: Who Should Compete in Women’s Sports? There Are ‘Two Almost Irreconcilable Positions.’

Only when it comes to women, right? Nobody else is expected to nod compliantly to such a ridiculous set-up. Who should win a prize established for black writers? There Are Two Almost Irreconcilable Positions – I don’t think. But it’s ok to bully women that way, because women are required to be Nice, which includes giving away their own rights and smiling pleasantly while they do it.

While scientific and societal views of sex and gender identity have changed significantly in recent decades, a vexing question persists regarding athletes who transition from male to female: how to balance inclusivity, competitive fairness and safety.

No they haven’t. Scientific and societal views of sex haven’t changed in recent decades, it’s just that a small faction of entitled men has invented a new version of “gender” that has a lot of people confused and intimidated.

The article is long, and pandering, and annoying. It refers to the physical advantage males have as “residual,” as if it’s mostly gone but there’s just this tiny little wisp remaining that stubborn Karens are making a big unwomanly fuss about. Who oh who oh who should compete in women’s sports, I just can’t figure it out.

11 Responses to “A tiny residue”