by Selwyn Duke
If because the sexes "are basically equal in capacities" there's no reason to keep women out of men's arenas, there's also no reason to keep men out of women's arenas.
Here’s  a question to ponder: If people think the male-female athletics  performance gap is very slight, will they be more or less likely to  oppose having men claiming womanhood enter women’s sports? Remember when  answering that such men generally have treatments (e.g.,  testosterone-suppressing drugs) that partially eliminate their  biological advantages.
Okay,  now here’s a story. It came to light when I worked with children that  one boy, approximately 11 years old, supposed that the women’s mile  record would be better than the men’s; another male age-mate expressed  the belief that the intersex performance gap was “very slight.” Of  course, they were perhaps extreme cases; nonetheless, experience has  taught me that people generally underestimate that gap’s size.
Yet given that in the 800-meter run the record for 14-year-old boys is better than the women’s world record  — and that, with a bit of variation, this reflects the gap across  physical sports — the aforementioned attitude reflects profound  dislocation from reality. So, here’s a second question: Where did these  people get their fanciful notions? From:
A.     The Christian Coalition
B.     The 700 Club
C.     The John Birch Society
D.    The Patriarchy™
E.     The  feminist-spawned, girl-power indoctrination people have been subjected  to for decades via the media, academia and entertainment
If you chose E, read on (everyone else, head to HuffPo).
 The  feminists who actually complain about MUSS (Made-up Sexual Status) -men  in women’s sports like to blame D, the patriarchy, whose fossilized  remains are as hard to find as a T-Rex’s. What blindness. They ought to  point the finger at Equality Dogma, at whose altar moderns worship and  which has been preached, incessantly, to advance an agenda.
The  feminists who actually complain about MUSS (Made-up Sexual Status) -men  in women’s sports like to blame D, the patriarchy, whose fossilized  remains are as hard to find as a T-Rex’s. What blindness. They ought to  point the finger at Equality Dogma, at whose altar moderns worship and  which has been preached, incessantly, to advance an agenda.
The  idea was that if you could convince people the sexes were basically  equal in worldly capacities, no one would think there was any reason to  keep women out of what traditionally had been male realms. Voila!  Goodbye, discrimination!
This  was convenient when girls/women wanted to join police forces and fire  departments, enter military academies such as the Citadel or Virginia  Military Institute, join boys’ sports teams and Little League, and  previously all-male clubs. It’s not so convenient now that the thinking  is being taken closer to its logical conclusion.
But  the point is this: If because the sexes “are basically equal in  capacities” there’s no reason to keep women out of men’s arenas, there’s  also no reason to keep men out of women’s arenas. In fact, not only is  this turnabout an imperative of equality, there isn’t even a good reason  to have separate, sex-specific arenas in the first place. They’re a  relic of a bigoted past — like baseball’s Negro Leagues.
As one commenter discussing MUSSmen in women’s sports put it here,  “I’m constantly told that men and women are equal and that gender is a  social construct. I’m constantly shown ‘bad[***] women’ on TV and in  movies that can beat up men easily. I’m told a woman can do anything a  man can do. So…why segregate sports?”
Because  men have an advanta…uh…but, wait, equality! No, I mean, er…there are  biologi…uh…not that I’m sexist! Talk about cognitive dissonance.
So now sports are less sex-segregated than ever, with males increasingly taking titles and glory from females; an example is the two Connecticut high school boy runners who’ve turned their girl competitors into also-rans. The girls are crying foul, too, but they should be crying “Feminists!!.”
Just  consider, for instance, how there was also a pseudo-scientific element  factoring in here. For decades the dominant, feminism-prescribed theory  (mis)shaping thinking on the sexes was known as “gender neutrality.” It  held that the sexes were the same except for the superficial physical  differences, and, therefore, raising boys and girls identically would  result in their being identical in personality, inclination and  abilities.
The  social pressure enforcing this dogma was intense, too. Left-wing writer  Camille Paglia, for instance, told a story about how feminists would  corner her on college campuses in the 1970s and insist that hormones didn’t exist and that, even if they did, they couldn’t possibly influence behavior. Again, it was convenient.
But  then something happened. The MUSS crew came along and essentially said,  “The proposition ‘The sexes are the same except for the superficial  physical differences’ has a corollary: ‘Change the superficial physical  differences, and you can be the opposite sex.’” Voila! Goodbye,  discrimination (against men who want to enter women’s sports)!
If  all this “hoisted with their own petards” action isn’t enough, there’s  another irony here. I was inundated with “gender neutrality” theory  growing up (not that I ever believed it). It was “science” with a  capital S, rejection of which got you branded as backward and bigoted.  Now this is precisely what happens to feminists who reject the MUSS  agenda today.
Of  course, this is all very insane. Yet the commenter I cited earlier (who  asked, “why segregate sports?”) reflects a now common sentiment. It’s a  feeling of schadenfreude experienced by those who, hearing for decades  the “A woman can do anything a man can!” battle cry, are happy the  feminists are finally being called out.
Speaking of which reminds me of a decades-old story involving ex-tennis champion Martina Navratilova. Long before she was complaining about  MUSSmen in women’s sports — which brought her condemnation — she was  puffing up her chest claiming she could beat the world’s 100th-ranked man.
Well, Ilie Nastase,  a colorful bad boy of tennis who was in his 40s at the time, well below  100 and mostly if not completely retired, challenged her to a match. He  was so anxious to make it work that he said, being his showy self, he  was willing to eat like a pig and gain weight to play her; he was even  willing to wear a dress. She never accepted the challenge.
It’s  ironic that female athletes are now increasingly being challenged by  men in dresses (figuratively if not literally) and no longer can demur.  You’ve come a long way, baby. 
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab (preferably) or Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.
Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/02/trans_women_vs_ciswomen_feminists_emcreatedem_the_monster_now_devouring_womens_sports.html
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment