Connect with us

Opinion

Female athletes are turning against gender-confused men dominating women’s sports

Published

6 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

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. 

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. 

Featured Image

Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker, writer, and pro-life activist. His commentary has been translated into more than eight languages and published widely online as well as print newspapers such as the Jewish Independent, the National Post, the Hamilton Spectator and others. He has received an award for combating anti-Semitism in print from the Jewish organization B’nai Brith. His commentary has been featured on CTV Primetime, Global News, EWTN, and the CBC as well as dozens of radio stations and news outlets in Canada and the United States.

He speaks on a wide variety of cultural topics across North America at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions. Some of these topics include abortion, pornography, the Sexual Revolution, and euthanasia. Jonathon holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in history from Simon Fraser University, and is the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

Jonathon’s first book, The Culture War, was released in 2016.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

International

Nigeria better stop killing Christians — or America’s coming “guns-a-blazing”

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

President Trump on Saturday warned that the United States military “may very well” launch an armed intervention in Nigeria if the government continues allowing the slaughter of Christians by radical Islamist groups — a stark escalation following his recent designation of the African nation as a “Country of Particular Concern.”

In a post on Truth Social, Trump directed the Department of War to “prepare for possible action,” warning Nigerian officials that Washington’s patience had run out. “If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria and may very well go into that now disgraced country, guns-a-blazing, to completely wipe out the Islamic terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities,” Trump wrote. He added that any American strike “will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our cherished Christians.”

The warning follows Trump’s declaration Friday that “Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria,” where thousands have been massacred by Islamist militants. He said the numbers were staggering — citing roughly 3,100 Christian deaths in Nigeria compared with about 4,476 worldwide — and ordered Rep. Riley Moore (R-W.Va.) and House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole (R-OK) to immediately investigate and report their findings. “Something must be done,” Trump wrote, calling the situation “a mass slaughter” and urging swift action.

Trump’s call to action has drawn praise from prominent voices. Rap mogul Nicki Minaj reposted Trump’s earlier remarks and said his attention to the plight of Nigerian Christians gave her a “deep sense of gratitude.” “We live in a country where we can freely worship God,” she wrote on X. “No group should ever be persecuted for practicing their religion.”

Trump’s increasingly forceful stance on Nigeria marks one of the clearest demonstrations yet of his promise to defend persecuted Christians worldwide — and to use America’s power, if necessary, to make that protection real.

Continue Reading

Justice

A Justice System That Hates Punishment Can’t Protect the Innocent

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Dan Knight's avatar Dan Knight

Five judges decided that child exploitation isn’t worth a year in prison

What the hell is going on in Canada?

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Senneville – SCC Cases

This isn’t a legal debate. This isn’t a constitutional nuance. This is a collapse. A collapse of morality, of justice, of basic human decency.

This week, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled—by a 5-4 vote—that handing a child pornographer a one-year prison sentence is cruel and unusual punishment. Yes, really. According to the highest court in the land, asking a man who hoarded videos of children—actual children—being raped… to serve twelve months behind bars… is too much to ask. It’s excessive. It’s unfair.

ARE YOU HEARING THIS?!!!!?!!!!?

Let’s talk about the two men at the center of this decision. Not hypotheticals. Not academic theories. Real men. Real crimes. Real victims.

Louis-Pier Senneville—a former soldier, no less—pleaded guilty to possessing over 470 files, 90 percent of which featured young girls aged 3 to 6. Think about that. Three years old. These weren’t gray-area images. These were children, babies, being sodomized, penetrated, used like objects. And he didn’t stumble across them—he looked for them, on specialized sites, and kept them for over a year.

Mathieu Naud? He went even further. 531 images, 274 videos, kids aged 5 to 10. Anal, vaginal, oral rape. These are things no human being should even have to read about—let alone sit in front of a computer and download, categorize, and distribute. Which he did. For months. With software designed to erase his tracks.

This isn’t some “first-time slip-up.” This is deliberate, targeted, depraved behavior. And now?

90 days.

9 to 11 months.

That’s the punishment.

That’s what the Canadian justice system thinks these crimes are worth.

Because five justices decided that asking a pedophile to spend one year in prison might be too harsh for a hypothetical offender. Not these offenders. Not the ones with troves of abuse files saved on hard drives. No… some imaginary guy who maybe clicked the wrong link.

This is what liberalism does to a justice system. It corrupts it beyond repair. It starts with empathy for criminals, and ends with judges protecting predators from consequences. Because in the upside-down world of progressive legal theory, the offender is always the victim. And the actual victims—the kids in those videos—are reduced to footnotes. Inconvenient collateral damage.

This decision—this revolting, disgraceful ruling—is not some fluke. It’s not an isolated misfire by a rogue court. It is the natural conclusion of a liberal worldview that refuses to see evil for what it is. A worldview that sees punishment as outdated, that sees moral judgment as offensive, and that sees child predators as victims of circumstance who just need counseling and compassion.

You want to know what happens when you erase right and wrong?

When your leaders worship “inclusivity” more than innocence?

When your courts protect predators more than children?

This happens.

Five judges decided that a man hoarding child rape videos should be treated with mercy.

Not the children in the videos—no. Not the parents whose lives were shattered.

Not the society that expects its institutions to defend the weak and punish the wicked.

No, mercy for the predator. ALWAYS FOR THE PREDATOR!!!

And now these men—Senneville and Naud—will be out walking the streets. Free men. Maybe shopping next to you at the grocery store. Maybe living near a school. Because Canada’s highest court decided that a year in prison was just too mean.

This isn’t policy failure. This is moral treason.

It’s going to take more than reform to fix this. It’s going to take an entirely new political order—one that puts children before criminals, justice before hypotheticals, and truth before ideology.

Until then, this isn’t a justice system.

It’s a disgrace.

And every decent person in Canada should be outraged.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X