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.
International
Trump’s Strike on Iran Reshapes Global Power Balance, Deals First Blow to Beijing and CRINK Axis

Some analysts say the U.S. strike marks the West’s first major blow in an emerging global war against the ‘CRINK’ alliance — China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
At 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, President Donald Trump confirmed that U.S. B-2 stealth bombers had penetrated Iranian airspace overnight and delivered precision strikes on multiple nuclear enrichment facilities—marking the first direct American military action targeting Iran’s nuclear program since the conflict with Israel escalated.
Trump said the strikes were “massive” and necessary to prevent the world’s most dangerous regime from acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapons.
The United States and its military had completed a strike unprecedented in history and that no other military can achieve, Trump declared in a televised address from the Oval Office, arguing that Iran had sought the destruction of Israel and America, and killed many U.S. soldiers.
The president’s remarks confirmed what international observers and Israeli defense officials had begun to piece together in the early hours of Saturday in the Middle East: that American forces had joined Israel’s rapidly expanding campaign to dismantle the Islamic Republic’s nuclear and military infrastructure—a move with historic ramifications for the balance of power in the region and for global security.
This attack, while narrowly focused on nuclear targets, may mark a broader inflection point in the strategic landscape of what some U.S. defense analysts call the “CRINK” war—referring to the de facto alliance of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
This morning Mike Gallagher, the former chairman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party and now a national security adviser, said the strike marked a return to credible power projection.
“Deterrence comes from dominant force and the willingness to use it,” he posted to X. “Last night, President Trump took a critical step toward restoring deterrence in the Middle East and around the world.”
According to senior U.S. defense officials, the strikes involved a small number of stealth bombers supported by aerial refueling tankers and surveillance aircraft operating from bases in the Middle East and Europe. The targets included Iran’s deeply buried Natanz uranium enrichment complex and secondary facilities near Arak and Fordow.
Of these, Fordow is considered Iran’s most fortified nuclear site—tunneled into a mountainside near the holy city of Qom and designed to survive conventional airstrikes. Reaching it requires specialized bunker-penetrating munitions. Only the United States possesses weapons capable of striking such hardened targets: most likely the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a 30,000-pound bomb built to bore through hundreds of feet of reinforced rock and concrete. Defense sources say multiple sequential detonations would be required to break through the mountain’s layers and disable the underground enrichment halls.
Early satellite imagery and Iranian state media appeared to corroborate the targeting of Natanz, reporting heavy damage and widespread power disruptions across the site and adjacent military compounds. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps issued a statement vowing retaliation but acknowledged that “enemy aircraft penetrated undetected and struck sensitive infrastructure.”
The United States, by committing its own strategic assets to destroy critical Iranian military infrastructure, has gained the initiative in what could be seen as the first true strategic victory for the West in World War III—a long, undeclared conflict characterized by economic warfare, proxy combat, gray-zone cyber operations, and regional insurgencies. The Pentagon and White House now face critical choices that could significantly shape the remainder of this century.
The strike could come at a high cost, but also could deliver epoch-shifting, decisive strategic benefits. Iran supplies drones to Russia, subsidizes oil to China, and provides weapons to terrorist actors that threaten U.S. bases and allies from the Gulf to the Mediterranean, military and intelligence analysts argue. Its defeat would damage the CRINK axis, remove a key enabler of great power revisionism, and restore American leverage after years of attritional conflict.
Trump’s language Saturday night suggested he may favor such a path.
In Jerusalem, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the American action as “a decisive blow against the terror regime in Tehran.” In a national address hours after the U.S. confirmation, Netanyahu said, “This is not just Israel’s fight—the free world has acted.”
Israeli media reported that the Israeli Air Force had provided electronic warfare support and real-time intelligence for the U.S. strikes, though officials declined to confirm operational details. In Tel Aviv, civilians remained under heightened alert, but there were signs of cautious optimism. “The alliance between Israel and the United States is at full strength,” one senior Israeli official told local media. “We have shifted the strategic calculus in the region.”
Iran’s Supreme National Security Council convened an emergency session overnight. Government officials condemned the strikes as an act of war and said Tehran would respond “at a time and place of our choosing.” As of Sunday morning EST, no immediate missile launches had been detected. However, Western intelligence agencies were monitoring known Iranian proxy forces in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen for signs of mobilization.
On Iranian social media channels, state-linked accounts circulated images of damaged facilities alongside calls for retaliatory “martyrdom operations” against U.S. and Israeli targets.
The joint U.S.-Israeli operation followed weeks of escalating hostilities, beginning with Israeli airstrikes deep inside Iranian territory that disabled radar arrays, weapons depots, and drone launch sites. Iranian retaliation—including missile and drone attacks on Israeli cities—prompted increasingly urgent warnings from Western capitals that the situation risked spiraling into open regional war.
In Tehran, BBC correspondents reported a rare mix of panic and defiance among civilians. Some feared a full-scale war was imminent. Others expressed anger at their government for failing to protect key military and nuclear assets.
European leaders called for restraint. In an interview late Saturday night EST, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz described the strike as “a painful but necessary step.” French officials warned of “a dangerous path toward uncontrollable conflict.”
In Washington, current and former intelligence officials said the operation signaled a fundamental shift in U.S. posture.
The Pentagon later confirmed the deployment of additional U.S. forces to the region, including carrier strike groups and long-range missile defense batteries.
Whether the operation succeeds in deterring Iran from restarting its nuclear weapons program—or sparks a wider war in the Middle East—remains uncertain. What is clear is that the seismic shift beneath Fordow began in Iran, but its aftershocks are now reverberating through the war rooms of Beijing and Moscow.
Editor’s Note: The first version of this story was updated to paraphrase President Trump’s remarks, and add a comment from former senator and CCP committee leader Mike Gallagher.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Invite your friends and earn rewards
National
Preston Manning: “Appearing to Cope” – Is This The Best We Can Do?

Many years ago, when I was in the consulting business, I visited Washington DC to re-connect with some Republican contacts I had previously made in California and who had since risen to positions of influence with the Nixon administration. In their California days they had been idealistic advocates of change, but when I met them in Washington most of that idealism had evaporated. As they ruefully explained, “ Here in Washington DC, the real name of the game is simply “appearing to cope”.
And how do politicians in high office play this game? When issue X arises, hold a news conference or give a speech acknowledging X’s existence and expressing deep concern. Convene a hearing or a conference on X, calling for decision makers and experts on X to attend and testify. Issue an executive order or send a draft bill to Congress with X in the title, the preamble, and the news release. In other words, substitute announcement for action, conferencing and discussion for results, and appearance for substance.
Flash forward 50 years and regrettably the “appearing to cope” strategy is very much alive and now practiced in Canada by the newly elected Carney government.
Is Infrastructure Development, long neglected and even obstructed by the discredited Trudeau administration, a pressing issue? Of course. So, borrowing from the Conservative platform, now make Infrastructure Development a theme of speeches and commentaries by Liberals seeking and winning election. Post election, convene a federal provincial conference with Infrastructure Development high on the agenda and post-conference communiques announcing “cooperation” on the subject. Introduce a bill in parliament purporting to facilitate Infrastructure Development by reducing federal regulations and interprovincial barriers while prophesying billions of dollars of investment in Infrastructure Development. As yet no actual infrastructure development has occurred – there are no shovels in the ground – but the appearance has been given that the federal government is successfully addressing the issue.
“Appearing to do” as a substitute for actually doing is now complemented and amplified in this age of social media by the ease with which governments and politicians can also “appear to be” something or someone they are not. The exhortation to “Do, rather than appear to do” should now be accompanied by that of the old Latin motto – Esse Quam Videri – “Be, rather than appear to be”.
As the contractors complete the future Chamber of the House of Commons in the refurbished Parliament Building in Ottawa, maybe they should carve into the ceiling of the Chamber – in a prominent place visible to all members of the House. “Do, rather than appear to do. Be, rather than appear to be.” Would not the acceptance and practice of those two exhortations render our politics and our government more worthy of public trust?
Subscribe to Preston’s Substack.
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
-
conflict4 hours ago
Pete Hegseth says adversaries should take Trump administration seriously
-
Energy5 hours ago
Energy Policies Based on Reality, Not Ideology, are Needed to Attract Canadian ‘Superpower’ Level Investment – Ron Wallace
-
Automotive1 day ago
Carney’s exercise in stupidity
-
Business1 day ago
Outrageous government spending: Canadians losing over 1 billion a week to interest payments
-
Business13 hours ago
High Taxes Hobble Canadian NHL Teams In Race For Top Players
-
conflict12 hours ago
“Spectacular military success”: Trump addresses nation on Iran strikes
-
conflict12 hours ago
Trump urges Iran to pursue peace, warns of future strikes
-
Alberta Sports Hall of Fame and Museum2 days ago
Alberta Sports Hall of Fame 2025 Inductee profiles – Luge Athlete, Alex Gough