L&T Publisher Earl Watt

Twenty-one states have voted to protect biological women in sports so far including Kansas. However, in the U.S. House of Representatives, the issue became partisan when a similar vote passed with all 219 Republicans voting for it while all 203 Democrats voted against it.

The bill wont likely pass the Senate unless Kirsten Sinema and Joe Manchin are willing to switch, and even if they do, Joe Biden has committed to vetoing the measure.

Much like the pandemic, it seems that partisan participation overrides common sense.

Why is it that only Republicans question the origin of COVID? Why is it that only Republicans are looking to protect biological women in sports?

According to an NPR/Ipsos poll, which is not a conservative poll, 63 percent of Americans do not want trans athletes competing against women.

Sounds reasonable. The work done for Title IX in the late 1960s and 70s was to make sure girls had equal opportunity in sports.

Women have not always been given a fair shot, and society has tried to make sure that women are receiving equal pay for equal work, equal opportunity in academic achievement and the ability to compete to be the best in sports.

It seems that biological women, those who are born female, who experience female puberty, who experience that monthly visitor, who get pregnant, who develop as a unique human being with female traits are somehow worth even less because a biological man can choose to occupy their space on the ecological niche.

Before the common opposers believe this is transphobic, that is simply not true. In a free society, men have the option to be men or displace women as choosing to be a woman as their gender choice. Knock yourself out.

But the difference here is how hard women worked to be recognized as a born female who achieved in business or in community service only to see a biological male take home the Female of the Year award.

Or win a swim meet. Or a track race. The list goes on.

This was an option biological women did not have in being a woman, and beyond that, it is a fact of nature that females are born female and males are born male.

In order to make you forget about the biological facts, you have to be stripped of your handle on the language.

Biology no longer matters, or so we are told. You are also told that gender identity begins in the womb, regardless of what biology says.

You are also informed that children in kindergarten need to be told to explore their sexuality so they can decide whether or not they are a boy or a girl.

Biology has already answered that question in virtually every case. There is the occasional moment when a child is born with genitalia of both male and female, but this according to Intersex HumanRights Australia, is only in 0.016 percent of the population.

What was once called gender dysphoria, where a person feels as if they do not identify with their biological sex, is now being rewritten.

Why?

Because of feelings rather than science.

We dont want anyone to feel bad, so we redefine the language.

Different trends are used for a person to stick out in a crowd, to be an individual. Hippies grew their hair long, goths chose to wear all black and black make-up, people enjoy a tattoo, and some even choose piercings in a variety of places. Weve also seen hair colors of all varieties.

Weve gone so far in people standing out, that there really is nothing that a person can really do to be unique.

But what about transitioning? The numbers are starting to increase in this trend.

Is it an effort to really identify, or could it be a way to stand out.

Also, since more biological males make the partial transition, is it a way for that biological male to feel they would stand out more if they were female?

Lets also explore the truth that these are not full-on transitions, or sex changes. Trans-women, for all intents and purposes, are full male from the waist down, even if they have taken hormone therapy to produce breasts and other emotions typically experienced by women.

The ultimate question is if a trans woman met a trans man, would either be satisfied with that pairing?

The answer is possibly, because according to pro-trans web site stonewall.org.uk, the gender you identify with has nothing to do with who you are attracted to.

Caitlyn Jenner, who was once Bruce Jenner, claims to be heterosexual, which means (s)he prefers to be with women even though (s)he chooses to live as a woman.

Jenner has also been a strong proponent of protecting biological women in sports.

This is why supporting biological women in sports is neither transphobic nor limiting the rights of others. It is highly likely that a trans woman (born male) is still attracted to women. If that is the case, why are they being allowed in locker rooms with other women?

If trans has nothing to do with attraction, as defined by the trans community, it is further evidence that biological women need their private spaces protected. Its not because I believe it to be so, but because their own definition demands it.

Continue reading here:

Trans definitions make the best case for protecting biological women - Leader & Times