British transgender rugby star celebrated for injuring women
It has long been agreed that athletes should not use performance enhancers like steroids. What hasn’t been discussed is the similar effect of transgender athletes who, biologically, have the natural equivalent of steroid enhancers without having consumed any drugs.
A recent BBC article, celebrating the accomplishments of Kelly Morgan in the sport of rugby, focuses on the social advances that Ms. Morgan has accomplished and glosses over the question of biological disadvantages she brought to the sport.
South Park is a notoriously offensive animated television show, which is why it’s not surprising that they recently spoofed one of the most absurd things to come down the pike of late—trans women in women’s sports.
Invoking the spirit of Randy “Macho Man” Savage, the latest South Park episode straight-up savages the issue of biological males in women’s sports. Here’s a clip from the episode:
Of course, the trans lobby is furious. Outrage and indignance is what they do best these days. Quillette editor Jon Kay quite rightly points out the fact that, with responses like these, they are quickly becoming the zealots of our time: “You can always tell who the real zealots are in any society: They’re the ones who despise humour and satire—because they know that spontaneous laughter marks one of those few moments when people are immune to the strictures of mob-enforced dogma.”
If anyone thought that South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone would shy away from skewering the absurdity of biological men dominating women’s sports just because they feel like women, they obviously haven’t been paying attention. This is the team that brought the world Tony Award-winning Book of Mormon, which takes aim at Mormon missionary work. Just like South Park, the show was initially reviled by the offence police but is still running nine years later.
The funniest part of all of this is how trans advocates keep thinking we shouldn’t laugh at how ridiculous these claims are. Dave Chappelle and Ricky Gervais have also made fun of biological men invading women’s spaces too. It’s because biological men forcing women into scenarios where they get their asses kicked (as is the case in many sports from MMA to rugby to cycling) or are forced to touch genitals against their will (as is the case in the Jessica Yaniv saga) are either criminal or funny, and since this madness keeps happening with complete endorsement of the elite political class and media, it must be funny.
Biological men with 12 months of estrogen treatment trounce women in every sport they enter, from cycling to track & field to weightlifting. Not only that, but in the case of cycling world champion Rachel McKinnon, they brag and call the women losers. It turns out that taking 12 months to lower a lifetime of testosterone levels doesn’t actually do much to handicap trans male athletes. It’s pretty funny that international athletic associations in so many sports, including rugby, one of the most violent contact sports around, allow men, taking performance decreasing drugs, to compete with women. Even when women take testosterone—which would be against the doping rules—they can’t match the decreased male testosterone levels.
South Park points out the extreme absurdity that we have allowed to happen because of the fear of censure for saying something politically incorrect. While no reasonable person denies the right of trans people to exist in the world and have their identities respected, there must be common-sense limits. When it comes to biological men dominating women’s sports, it must be said loud and clear that in this case, men are not women. And since the people in charge are too cowardly to say so, we must rely on comedians to mock the absurdities of the situation.
Besides: dudes beating the hell out of women in competitive sports is just an objectively funny spectacle worthy of mockery. And when it comes to the women who have trained hard their whole lives to achieve athletic excellence only to be beaten by these men, it’s funny enough to make you cry.
For trans ideology to truly spread, it needs to become an inherent part of our core belief system. As natural as the sky being blue, and the earth being round, we must all have the truth of trans as a foundational element of our understanding about the world for it to thrive. Convincing adults is one thing, but to really make this wash, it’s children that need to taught the dogma of multiple gender identities and the ability of humans to swap their sex for its opposite. The purported goal behind teaching children that male and female are nothing more than feelings is compassion, empathy, and anti-bias.
The work to bring children into the trans fold is pervasive and growing, and we’ve seen it in the US and Canada. In Sweden, the government is pouring money into an educational program for drag queens to read to children with disabilities. Meanwhile, in the UK, where trans advocates have a major head start, the BBC is airing educational programming to teach children that there are as many genders as stars in the sky. Both of these programs bring new dictates on gender to young kids. And kids, malleable as they are, typically believe what adults tell them.
Presumably, both the Swedish government and the BBC believe they are doing the right thing, a good thing, taking a positive step in the education of their nations’ children. But why does the Swedish federal government and the BBC want children open to the idea that gender and biological sex are different entities, and that biological sex differences are not meaningful with regard to anything at all?
The Swedish program, implemented on a federal level, is funded by a cache of cash left behind by those Swedes who died without any heirs, and is administered by Kulturforenigen Mums, which has brought in drag storytelling outfit Among Dragons and Drag Queens to create the curriculum. Among Dragons and Drag Queens’ plans is to rewrite those staid, boring, cis heteronormative fairy tales and replace them with stories where perhaps damsels rescue themselves, and handsome princes realize they’d rather fight for their right to be princesses than aspire to true love and responsibility.
The idea behind drag story hour is that children’s concepts of gender are uprooted and questioned by having grown men dressed fantastically and comically as women. While they’re at it, Among Dragons and Drag Queens should bring in some women and men and who have truly bucked gender stereotypes, like dads who prioritize raising their kids over a full-time career, or women who build bridges. Wardrobe is fashion, but life choices are what actually matter.
In the BBC video, children read questions about gender, such as “What are the different gender identities?” The answer is that this is a “that’s a really, really, exciting question to ask.” And another specialist tells children, in a voice rich with wonder and discovery, “do you know there are so many gender identities. So we know we’ve got male and female, but there are over a hundred, if not more, gender identities now. So we know that some people might think they are two different genders, so people might think they are bigender, and then you’ve got some people who might call themselves genderqueer, who are just like I don’t really want to be anything, in particular, I’m just going to be me.”
If this is all so innate, as male and female were considered to be only a few short minutes ago, why do kids need specialized education to understand it? If the goal is compassion, empathy, and instilling an egalitarian mindset, drag story hour and blatant televised lies about there being over 100 genders are not the answer.
So why do the BBC and the Swedish federal government want to make sure children know that men who don’t feel like adhering to male stereotypes and women who don’t want to adhere to female stereotypes are necessarily something other than male and female?
Is this about making sure kids are not prejudiced against people who present and act differently from the expected stereotype? Is the goal to make sure that kids know that they personally do not have to adhere to these stereotypes? Maybe the goal is to break down sex-based stereotypes altogether so that kids know that their capabilities are not limited by their sex?
What these educational programs actually do is solidify and entrench different expectations other than the traditional ones. While these programs have the tinge of compassion, consideration, and inclusiveness, that is actually an illusion. Instead of breaking down the limiting factors of socially constructed sex-based stereotypes and leaving that space open, it fills it with new rules about how not adhering to stereotypes means you are the opposite gender from that which your sex determines you are.
The message behind telling children there are people who are bigender, or multi-gender, or people who “just want to be me,” is that children must choose their gender, not that some people do, but that everyone must. Affirming these delusions is confirming them. What child doesn’t want to “just be me?” And if the way to “just be me” is to say “I’m different from my body,” then that’s what kids will do. These are guidelines to rebellion against the body, they are not telling children “here are some paths,” they are saying “this is the path, walk down it.”
The reason for indoctrinating children early in the ways of society is to make sure they know exactly what concepts and constructs cannot be questioned and must be adhered to, both in thought and action. If trans ideology were about acceptance, something more along the lines of “people are different, don’t judge people for those things about themselves that they can’t control,” we would be in the realm of anti-bias initiatives. If the message were “you don’t have to be limited by traditional gender roles,” that would be about breaking down stereotypes.
In the current merry multi-gender climate, the way that gender stereotypes are bucked is by showing men in dresses, and women speaking up for themselves. This is a strange dichotomy where what male gender warriors are fighting against is wardrobe, and female gender fighters are railing against traditional gender roles. But the thing is, those roles have already been turned on their heads. Women and men have far more freedom than they used to and are free live as they choose. The fact that adults want to transition and live as the opposite sex, or perform drag shows for other adults, has been pretty well accepted. The problem here is that children are being told lies to uphold adult desires.
Canadians have made it clear that they are outraged over Don Cherry’s firing. After the news broke, Sportsnet released a statement explaining why they had chosen to boot the Canadian icon.
In a statement, quite clearly written by some Bay Street PR firm, the media organization said that “Sports brings people together—it unites us, not divides us. Following further discussion with Don Cherry … it has been decided it is the right time for him to immediately step down.”
Although Sportsnet desperately attempted to limit the damage, the vast majority of reactions to their post was negative. In the statement’s comment section, thousands of tempestuous hockey fanatics (some of whom would’ve grown up with Cherry), made their feelings known.
Some respondents labelled Don Cherry’s firing as a symptom of cancel culture, while others thought that Cherry’s removal was long overdue.
As well as this, some Twitter users vowed to never watch Sportsnet again. One man even declared that upon hearing the news he called his service provider to cancel his families subscription.
There has been much commentary over how Cherry is preferred by the older generation, rather than the younger. Indeed, many young hockey fans did not comprehend the older generation’s reverence of the pundit. One young Canadian made this point tersely.
All in all, Sportsnet’s decision has already proven to be deeply contentious for Canadians. Although the goal of the petition, cancellations, and public outrage is to get Cherry back into Coach’s Corner, it seems unlikely to occur.
Eric Duncan, a newly-elected Conservative MP, says his party should change its approach to LGBTQ issues to resonate with more of the electorate.
“I think we need to work on how we make ourselves a modern Conservative party, and that includes being more inclusive on that issue,” said the new MP for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry to CTV.
“I’m looking forward to playing a role in that and helping shape that a little bit more in the coming months and years,” said the Conservative MP, who is gay himself.
Numerous political pundits have said that CPC leader Andrew Scheer’s ambiguity on issues such as same-sex marriage hindered his chances of election.
Kory Teneycke, a former director of communications for former prime minister Stephen Harper and campaign manager for Ontario Premier Doug Ford, said that Scheer will have “big problems” with voters if his position on same-sex marriage remains unclear and “associated with bigotry.”
“In terms of actually being successful in being elected to be the prime minister of the country, I think it’s a deal-stopper,” he said.
Former Conservative minister Peter MacKay said many women turned away from the Conservatives because of Scheer’s “social conservatism.”
When asked if he still supports Scheer remaining as party leader, Duncan said he wants to hear Scheer’s explanation of the election results and how the Conservatives can gain power.