Opinion
Female athletes are turning against gender-confused men dominating women’s sports
From LifeSiteNews
If female athletes came together and demanded, with one voice, that female sports be protected, they would be pushing at an open door.
What happens when obvious truths about the differences between the sexes are denied by the elites at the behest of the transgender movement? And what happens when female athletes discover that their rights mean less than the newly invented “rights” of trans-identifying men to invade their spaces?
We’ve seen the answer to that play out over the past few years. This month alone, a trans-identifying male beat his female competitors at an Oregon track meet by a full six seconds, with the video of him zipping across the finish line sparking outrage; a trans-identifying marathon runner announced that he will be competing in the full set of six marathon majors in Boston in the male, female and “non-binary” categories; and courts in West Virginia and Ohio ruled that trans-identifying males can compete on female sports teams.
In the meantime, U.K. culture secretary Lucy Frazer called for a ban on males in female sports after meeting with representatives of a number of female sports leagues, writing:
In competitive sport, biology matters. And where male strength, size and body shape gives athletes an indisputable edge, this should not be ignored. By protecting the female category, they can keep women’s competitive sport safe and fair and keep the dream alive for the young girls who dream of one day being elite sportswomen.
She concluded, “We must get back to giving women a level playing field to compete. We need to give women a sporting chance.” Refreshingly, she called on sporting bodies to take an “unambiguous position” on the matter.
That, of course, is common sense. What makes Frazer’s statements significant is that she does not, like most politicians trying to thread the needle by accepting transgender ideology but rejecting the inevitable conclusions thereof, make multiple references to “transgender women.” She instead refers to keeping male bodies out of female sports, much to the outrage of trans activists, who insist that males who identify as females are females, and thus have female bodies, because they said so.
Over the past several years, it has fallen largely to the few female sportswomen who dared to risk the opprobrium of the LGBT movement to speak for the majority and point out the unfairness of allowing males to invade their sporting domains; now, an increasing number are willing to speak out. A recent study conducted by Manchester Metropolitan and Swansea universities, published April 17 in the Journal of Sports Sciences, indicates that the majority of female athletes want women’s sports to be categorized by sex rather than “gender identity.”
Fifty-eight percent of respondents in the study of elite female athletes wanted categorization by biological sex; that rose to 77 percent among those classified as “world-class athletes” who had competed in Olympic or world championship finals. Researchers surveyed 175 “national, elite and world class female athletes – current and retired – from a range of sports and countries” and included “26 world champions, 22 Olympians and six Paralympians,” making it the largest study of its kind conducted thus far. A BBC Sports study last month found that over 100 elite U.K. female athletes “would be uncomfortable” with trans-identifying males competing in the female categories of their sports.
According to the study, there is one exception to the rule: the “majority of athletes competing in non-Olympic sports believe changing category should be allowed, with the highest rate of 74% among those in ‘precision’ sports such as archery.”
In short, the higher female athletes climb, the more likely they are to object to trans-identifying males competing in their categories. Most of these athletes, of course, remain unnamed. Imagine if they came out together and demanded, with one voice, that female sports be protected. It would constitute a cultural sea change – and I suspect the moment is right for them to do so. If they pushed, they would be pushing at an open door.
From the Brownstone Institute
Cigarettes kill nearly half a million Americans each year. Everyone knows it, including the Food and Drug Administration. Yet while the most lethal nicotine product remains on sale in every gas station, the FDA continues to block or delay far safer alternatives.
Nicotine pouches—small, smokeless packets tucked under the lip—deliver nicotine without burning tobacco. They eliminate the tar, carbon monoxide, and carcinogens that make cigarettes so deadly. The logic of harm reduction couldn’t be clearer: if smokers can get nicotine without smoke, millions of lives could be saved.
Sweden has already proven the point. Through widespread use of snus and nicotine pouches, the country has cut daily smoking to about 5 percent, the lowest rate in Europe. Lung-cancer deaths are less than half the continental average. This “Swedish Experience” shows that when adults are given safer options, they switch voluntarily—no prohibition required.
In the United States, however, the FDA’s tobacco division has turned this logic on its head. Since Congress gave it sweeping authority in 2009, the agency has demanded that every new product undergo a Premarket Tobacco Product Application, or PMTA, proving it is “appropriate for the protection of public health.” That sounds reasonable until you see how the process works.
Manufacturers must spend millions on speculative modeling about how their products might affect every segment of society—smokers, nonsmokers, youth, and future generations—before they can even reach the market. Unsurprisingly, almost all PMTAs have been denied or shelved. Reduced-risk products sit in limbo while Marlboros and Newports remain untouched.
Only this January did the agency relent slightly, authorizing 20 ZYN nicotine-pouch products made by Swedish Match, now owned by Philip Morris. The FDA admitted the obvious: “The data show that these specific products are appropriate for the protection of public health.” The toxic-chemical levels were far lower than in cigarettes, and adult smokers were more likely to switch than teens were to start.
The decision should have been a turning point. Instead, it exposed the double standard. Other pouch makers—especially smaller firms from Sweden and the US, such as NOAT—remain locked out of the legal market even when their products meet the same technical standards.
The FDA’s inaction has created a black market dominated by unregulated imports, many from China. According to my own research, roughly 85 percent of pouches now sold in convenience stores are technically illegal.
The agency claims that this heavy-handed approach protects kids. But youth pouch use in the US remains very low—about 1.5 percent of high-school students according to the latest National Youth Tobacco Survey—while nearly 30 million American adults still smoke. Denying safer products to millions of addicted adults because a tiny fraction of teens might experiment is the opposite of public-health logic.
There’s a better path. The FDA should base its decisions on science, not fear. If a product dramatically reduces exposure to harmful chemicals, meets strict packaging and marketing standards, and enforces Tobacco 21 age verification, it should be allowed on the market. Population-level effects can be monitored afterward through real-world data on switching and youth use. That’s how drug and vaccine regulation already works.
Sweden’s evidence shows the results of a pragmatic approach: a near-smoke-free society achieved through consumer choice, not coercion. The FDA’s own approval of ZYN proves that such products can meet its legal standard for protecting public health. The next step is consistency—apply the same rules to everyone.
Combustion, not nicotine, is the killer. Until the FDA acts on that simple truth, it will keep protecting the cigarette industry it was supposed to regulate.
Author
The tipoff came when the proud Canadian comic who couldn’t be bothered to still live here reprised Elbows Up. It was going to be Mark Carney’s dream come true, the perfect distraction from him apologizing to Orange Man Bad for Doug Ford’s commercial. A team from his political base claiming national status so he could whip up O Canada/ Hate Trump while he tries to sign a trade deal, any deal, with the U.S.
The Globe & Mail, once a serious newspaper, fell in line. “The Blue Jays aren’t just playing for themselves. Because of Trump they’re playing for all of Canada.” Corporate Canada, like Jays “proud owners” at Rogers, threw the Canadian flag into every commercial running. You’d have thought Melanie Joly was batting cleanup.
Never mind there are no Canadians playing for Toronto (Vlad Guerrero was born in Montreal but identifies as Dominican) or that the Dodgers first baseman actually plays for Team Canada. Or that Canadian anthem singers at the games whined about reconciliation while changing the lyrics of O Canada. All they needed to seal the deal was one measly win in Game 7 and a snap federal election was a shoo-in.
As blogger/ writer Jonathan Kay has observed, “I absolutely love that the Canadian media has gone from “Here’s why so-called Canada is a colonial settler genocide state” to “here is the correct way to be a proud Canadian nationalist” in like 15 minutes.”
The fans in attendance in Toronto and via television tuned it all out. In game 7, Toronto went up 3-0 on a homer by Bo Bichette, who already has one foot out the door headed to free agency. It was strictly ballroom for the Boomer Zoomers in the stands and watching on TV. Sure, Turtle Island may put in a land claim at any moment on the “ancestral home” occupied by the Roger Centre. Party on.
Till it ended sadly past midnight in lame jokes when L.A.’s catcher homered in the eleventh inning. “What did @Dodgers Will Smith say to @BlueJays pitcher Shane Bieber? SLAP!” Game. Set. Match.
The party rally over, the Dodgers— who hit just .203 in the Series— celebrated on the infield while Jays fans sat in stunned silence contemplating 12 hits, 10 men left on base and 3 for 14 with runners in scoring position. Remarkable the Jays didn’t win.
The contrast with the 1992-93 experience couldn’t be more stark. But baseball fans not dragging all the political baggage shouldn’t lose sight of the rags-to-riches season on the field. Here was our tepid assessment of the team’s chances in March. “While it’s true that the sun can’t shine on the same team every day, Jays fans believe it would be nice if the great orb would find their club as it did back in the 1992/93 World Series days. Instead of the reflected glory of past stars winning for other teams. Patience is thin. And time is ticking.”
After that was written the Jays did give Vlad Guerrero his 14-year, $500 million deal, locking up their star for his baseball life. But if that was supposed to inspire the team it was a loser. By May 8 they were 16-20. Then they hovered near .500 till the start of June. When we remarked, “Even the Jays’ paid broadcast team was having a tough time putting a happy face on ever catching the Yankees for first.
In desperation manager John Schneider began giving at-bats to prospects like Addison Barger and Jonatan Clase. Journeymen like Nathan Lukes, Ernie Clement and Davis Schneider also thrived in platoon situations.
Another journeyman Eric Lauer solidified the fourth starter spot while Max Scherzer convalesced. In the bullpen unheralded lefties Brendan Little and Mason Fluharty gave Schneider valuable late-game innings. Catcher Alejandro Kirk, handed a new contract, gave the pitching staff a reliable asset.”
Then came the hinge point. In late June/ early July the battered Blue Jays went on a wholly unexpected tear. They won 19 of 24 games, ending with taking three games from MLB’s best team, the Tigers, in Detroit. They didn’t just beat opponents, they pounded them.
Still, management was cautious at the trade deadline in July. They picked up useful bullpen arms in Seranthony Dominguez and Tommy Nance. They rolled the dice on former Cy Young winner Shane Bieber who hadn’t pitched in two seasons. And they picked up versatile Ty France.
But nothing earth-shattering. By August the Jays had earned a 91.9 percent chance of making the postseason, a five percent chance of winning the World Series. But Mr. Carney was not adopting them just yet as the Jays staggered through September. Guerrero didn’t get an extra base hit from Sept. 7- 20. They were playing without, arguably, their best player in Bichette.
Their pitching staff was in tatters with Chris Bassitt gone to the injured list, José Berrios banned to the bullpen, Max Scherzer strafed for seven runs in one start, Jeff Hoffman blowing leads like he blows his nose. All Star catcher Kirk, OFs Addison Barger and Daulton Varsho went cold at the same time.
But the Jays pieced together enough offence centered on George Springer and spare parts like Ernie Clement to keep the wheels on. Bieber, the former Cy Young winner, was a life saver. And as Detroit completed the worst choke in MLB history, Toronto was able to grab home field advantage in the playoffs.
That was when Team Toronto became Carney’s Team Canada, a rallying point for his base as he floundered on the world stage. It’s hard enough to buy into the Team Canada pitch with a Canadian NHL team where at least half the players are Canadian. The Jays don’t even have a surefire domestic prospect in their system at the moment. (They had Toronto’s Rob Butler on the 1992-93 Series winners).
The Laurentian elites were undeterred. According to the G&M, the surrogate Jays were the happy face of their federalism. And for a dizzy month they delivered for both baseball fans and the PMO. For good measure the World Series records fell like autumn leaves, culminating in the final weekend in Toronto. When the dreaded Dodgers squeezed out the wins they needed.
L.A. Times reporter Dylan Hernandez rubbed it in. “It’s amazing how the city of Toronto just keeps producing one loser after another. They’re like San Diego north. I did have to give one last parting shot to my friends up north, because they’re not coming back here anytime soon.”
But Jayson Stark of The Athletic was more sympathetic. “How can you tell when you’ve just been part of the greatest World Series game of your lifetime? Or maybe we should make that anybody’s lifetime? Do you have to wait for a panel of historians to rule on it? Or do you just look into the eyes of your teammates and recognize that you all know it when you see it, when you live it, when you play in it?”
We are with Stark and all baseball fans who resented the first nighters, red-carpet snobs and jock-sniffing politicians horning in on the fun of baseball. It was a time to remember that will linger long after the Elbows Up crew leave us. For now, go Oilers, Habs, Senators, Jets, Canucks, Flames and (gasp) Oilers.
Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster, his new book Deal With It: The Trades That Stunned The NHL And Changed hockey is now available on Amazon. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History, his previous book with his son Evan, was voted the seventh-best professional hockey book of all time by bookauthority.org . His 2004 book Money Players was voted sixth best on the same list, and is available via brucedowbigginbooks.ca.
From Underdog to Top Broodmare
In his own words: Stunning Climate Change pivot from Bill Gates. Poverty and disease should be top concern.
Trans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder
The painful return of food inflation exposes Canada’s trade failures
-
Business1 day ago
Trans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder
-
International1 day agoBiden’s Autopen Orders declared “null and void”
-
MAiD1 day agoStudy promotes liver transplants from Canadian euthanasia victims
-
Business1 day agoCanada has given $109 million to Communist China for ‘sustainable development’ since 2015
-
Internet1 day agoMusk launches Grokipedia to break Wikipedia’s information monopoly
-
Business1 day agoCanada’s combative trade tactics are backfiring
-
Automotive1 day agoCarney’s Budget Risks Another Costly EV Bet
-
Business1 day agoYou Won’t Believe What Canada’s Embassy in Brazil Has Been Up To