ANALYSIS: Actually, we care about fairness … but the radical gender identity movement threatens the concept
A huge social media discussion topic during the Paris Summer Olympics was how two allegedly female boxers unfairly pummeled their way to the gold medal round.
Algeria’s Imane Khelif and Taiwan’s Lin Yu-ting reportedly had previously failed gender/sex tests (they had XY chromosomes), according to International Boxing Association. As a result, they both were disqualified from last year’s World Championships.
The International Olympic Committee apparently saw things differently, and allowed Khelif and Yu-ting to compete. The IOC routinely had given chromosome tests up until the end of the last century (my sister was given them — twice), and over 80 percent of female athletes wanted the tests to continue.
The IOC’s Mark Adams seems to believe that doing away with gender testing is some sort of positive accomplishment in this head-scratching video clip.
To be sure, there has been plenty of pushback from the trans and parts of the LGBTQ+ lobbies regarding the two boxers, largely pointing to certain anomalies or syndromes for which the athletes should not be held culpable. If such indeed turns out to be the case, it still doesn’t alter the concerns/complaints of the larger (mainly female) athletic community and general public regarding fairness.
In a recent Forbes article, Oregon State University’s Susan Shaw (pictured) hits all the politically correct heartstrings in defense of Khelif and Yu-ting, saying the former has “always identified as female,” that the IOC doesn’t “recognize” the International Boxing Association, and that we exist in a time of “heightened transphobia.”
“So why is it so hard for us, especially in the US, to have such an important and needed conversation?” Shaw asks. For her, the average spectator (and athlete) is too stupid to understand the “nuances” of sex and gender.
Shaw, the instructor of courses such as “Feminism and the Bible,” “Global Feminist Theologies,” and “Feminist Theologies in the US,” cites a stat that less than 30 percent of Americans are “scientifically literate” which conflicts with the notion that “sports are built on assumptions of two kinds of bodies—male and female.”
Shaw says “Yet the science for many bodies is not that simple.”
MORE: OSU’s Shaw: White Christians deny climate change while west coast burns
“We can’t have nuanced conversations if we simply line up on ‘our’ side, especially with issues that may have more than two sides to them,” she says. “We also can’t have conversations if we aren’t willing to acknowledge that we might just be wrong.”
Shaw (quickly) concedes that in sports men have inherent advantages in most endeavors … but then concludes the segment thusly in a typical women’s, gender, and sexuality studies style:
I think at the core of much gender-segregated sport is that fear with which boys are often taunted—“You lost to a girl!” The idea of men losing to women in athletic competition goes completely against the grain of sports culture, and so we make sure that won’t happen by preventing women and men from competing …
How about this: If there’s one thing Americans value in their sports, it’s fairness. And they love underdogs. When the two intersect it’s glorious. Take the Miracle on Ice. Or Kurt Warner becoming quarterback for the St. Louis Rams in 1999.
Regarding the former, Americans resented the fact that the USSR team technically was comprised of “amateurs” because they didn’t get paid to play on “professional” teams. Of course, they did get paid — all were members of the Red Army hockey team and had been together for many years. Quite unlike the American squad which had been cobbled together from various college teams.
Shaw’s point would be better received by the general public if it already hadn’t been subjected to progressive states’ mandates that high school (and some college) athletes must be permitted to participate on the teams they wish. That is, if a biological boy merely “identifies” as a girl, he’s allowed to run on the girls’ track team, use the girls’ locker room, etc. Any anyone opposed to such are labeled “bigots,” “transphobes,” etc. etc.
Further, in response to direct questions of fairness, the public gets retorts like those of women’s soccer star Megan Rapinoe — that Hey mom and dad, “I’m sorry, your kid’s high school volleyball team just isn’t that important. It’s not more important than any one kid’s life.”
Get it? In order for the trans-kid’s feelings not getting hurt, your standard gender-binary kid’s feelings — and aspirations — don’t matter.
And what happens when someone offers a thoughtful, logical solution regarding the growing desire for inclusion of gender non-specific individuals in sports — like a separate category for gender non-specific participants? That person literally is canceled.
Yes, there’s been a lot of misinformation and hard feelings on social media regarding such issues … but progressives have pressed the matter and belittled those who question them.
Here’s something to ponder: How would Americans react to a trans-man (biological woman) who had managed to make it to the Olympics and was in contention for a medal? I’d bet many (most?) would be cheering for the underdog athlete.
MORE: OSU Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies program celebrates with drag show
IMAGES: leungchopan/Shutterstock.com; Oregon State U.
Please join the conversation about our stories on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, MeWe, Rumble, Gab, Minds and Gettr.