I like sports. Even soccer.
That’s why I oppose “transgender women” — biological men, for those playing at home — competing in women’s sports. The physical advantages that men, transgender or not, have over women make such athletic contests inherently unfair.
Worse, from a marketing standpoint: unexciting.
And sometimes dangerous.
Look, women are better than men at a lot of things. Maybe
The problem is one of uncompetitive competition, not hatred of transsexuals. It’s no more anti-trans to forbid men from competing in women’s sports than it is anti-men to limit girls’ sports to biological girls.
“I got a lot of negative feedback about me hating trans,” WNBA star Sophie Cunningham told ESPN. “And I’m like, ‘I never once said that.’
“I think that I am here to extend love. But I also think with that love is truth, being honest,” Cunningham explained. “And I want to protect young girls in a locker room, or young girls in sport who shouldn’t have to go against biological men.”
What about the reverse? That is, “transgender men” — biological women — competing in men’s sports?
There doesn’t seem to be a big controversy about that. Why not?
It just hasn’t happened, I figured. But I discovered that yes, it has.
Without sparking much controversy, I note. And why? Because in this scenario the transgendered person is at a disadvantage. Punching up, so to speak. Trans men going against bigger, stronger, faster competitors (biologically likely to be, at least) and yet they’re still willing to suit up.
That’s what I love about sports.
This is Common sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with Nano Banana
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts