I last wrote on the trans issue, and in particular, on the issue of trans men dominating women’s sports, in Biden: On The Bodies… in January of 2021. Additional, related articles are (in descending chronological order):
The theme of these articles is men pretending to be women must not be allowed to dominate women’s sports, thus denying women the benefits of fair athletic competition. This excerpt from Trans Sports: It Doesn’t Have To Be That Way, sums it up:
Why would men want to compete as women? The contemporary line is they “identify” as women, so society must accommodate their desires. They have a “right” to be who/whatever they want to be, and everyone else must not only surrender their rights, but must praise their bravery, integrity and superior morality in seeking to be whatever they want to be today. The same thing applies if they want to be something else tomorrow.
Reality, which is for the moment in decline, is substantially different. Men want to play women’s sports because men who would never have a chance at winning when competing against other men can suddenly advance to the highest ranks of women’s sports. Reality should also dictate there are two–only two–easily identifiable genders, and no one is obligated to help anyone else pretend to be anything they choose to be, nor is anyone obligated to praise such people for their pretense. Noteworthy is the near total lack of women identifying as men crushing male opponents. Even women taking male hormones do not have the physical structure, muscle density, size, strength and endurance necessary to do that. This is a single gender, political war, and the victims are unquestionably real, biological women.
This is very much a one-way issue. Women “identifying” as men, cannot enter top level men’s sports and expect anything other than to be beaten soundly. Since I began writing about this issue in 2018, an increasing number of states—all red states—have passed legislation prohibiting biological males from competing in women’s sports, and more are considering such legislation. If one truly cares about the rights and welfare of girls and women, this is a good thing.
In this article, we return to the lawsuit filed by four Connecticut high school track athletes. Fox News reports:
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by female high school athletes who claimed that Connecticut‘s policy of allowing students to compete in sports based on gender identity deprived them of fair competition due to the participation of two transgender students.
Selina Soule, Chelsea Mitchell, Alanna Smith and Ashley Nicoletti had sued the Connecticut Association of Schools and several local school boards, claiming that transgender students Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller had an unfair biological advantage. On Sunday, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Chatigny dismissed the case because Yearwood and Miller had both graduated, rendering the case moot.
‘I conclude that the request to enjoin enforcement of the CIAC policy has become moot due to the graduation of Yearwood and Miller, whose participation in girls’ track provided the impetus for this action,’ Chatigny wrote in the court’s ruling. ‘There is no indication that Smith and Nicoletti will encounter competition by a transgender student in a CIAC-sponsored event next season.’
As I noted in previous article, Judge Chatigny was so obviously biased against the girls, their lawyers filed a motion for his removal from the case, which was obviously not granted. Chatigny slow rolled the case until he could claim it moot because two of the girls graduated. Notice his smug assertion the two remaining girls probably won’t face trans competition next year. He of course, cannot know that, and in dismissing the case, he preserves the status quo allowing all other female athletes in Connecticut to be denied fair competition. Oh sure, they can always file another lawsuit…
Chatigny did acknowledge the students’ claims that they would have finished with better results in competitions if not for the participation of Yearwood and Miller – especially Mitchell, who would have won four more events and qualified for a regional championship. The judge, however, said that while changing the record to award her the victories might impress a potential employer, the employer would eventually discover that Mitchell had not actually finished first so there would be no benefit over the present situation anyway.
Isn’t that lovely reasoning, gentle readers? The girls were beaten unfairly, so anyone observing a corrected record would think like Chatigny and decide their being beaten by men is plenty fair, no big deal. Hey, a win is a win is a win, right? Maybe next time, as in Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron, girls can be even further burdened, to make it easier for even non-fit men identifying as women to win. This is what happens when D/S/C activists are allowed to identify as judges. Chatigny’s “opinion” is here.
Mary Chastain, writing at Legal Insurrection, suggests there may be hope in this case:
However, Chatigny’s ruling might not hold up thanks to a SCOTUS decision in March.
In 2017, a student sued his school for allegedly violating his free speech rights. The case lingered and the student graduated.
SCOTUS ruled on the case on March 8. From Professor Jacobson’s post:
The U.S. Supreme Court issued an Opinion authored by Justice Thomas on March 8, 2021, in the case, with the issue turning on whether someone who claimed only ‘nominal’ damages was able to sue. The Court held that such a free speech denial was actionable, with only Chief Justice Roberts dissenting.
The problem for a student who sues is that in a matter of a small number of years, the student graduates while the lawsuit can linger. The issue is whether once the student graduates, the student still has a personal interest in the case sufficient to satisfy the ‘standing’ requirement. Here, the student claimed nominal damages as a continuing injury.
Justice Thomas and seven other Justices agreed the student could maintain the lawsuit. From the Thomas majority opinion:
‘At all stages of litigation, a plaintiff must maintain a personal interest in the dispute. The doctrine of standing generally assesses whether that interest exists at the outset, while the doctrine of mootness considers whether it exists throughout the proceedings. To demonstrate standing, the plaintiff must not only establish an injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct but must also seek a remedy that redresses that injury. And if in the course of litigation a court finds that it can no longer provide a plaintiff with any effectual relief, the case generally is moot. This case asks whether an award of nominal damages by itself can redress a past injury. We hold that it can.’ [emphasis mine]
And for this, Jenner’s supposed supporters, the party of women and against the Republican “war on women,” savaged Jenner:
It’s just that kind of thoughtful, loving commentary that so endears the entire LGBTQWERTY “community” to Normal Americans. Jenner, by the way, is running on the Republican ticket for governor of California.
As I’m sure readers are aware, the Biden/Harris/Whoever Administration—Joe Biden, Temporary President—withdrew the DOJ’s support for the girl’s position, and also withdrew every Trump era policy regarding trans issues. Let us, before closing, review reality with an excerpt from Trans Athletes: Divorced From Reality:
At the last  Olympics, the gold medal winner in the women’s marathon ran in a time of 2:24:04. In contrast, the men’s gold medal winner ran 16 minutes faster, finishing in 2:08:44.
Interestingly both winners were from Kenya, born about a month apart in 1984, taking age and ethnicity out of the equation.
More instructive are the finishing times of the other men in the race. If the gold medal winning woman ran in the men’s event, her time would have placed her in 90th place, far away from the medal stand. Conversely, any of the top 89 finishing males would have won a gold medal if competing as a female in the women’s event. [emphasis mine]
Here’s another example from The Daily Mail:
The USA women’s football [soccer; The Daily Mail is British] team were convincingly beaten by a team of adolescents in a embarrassing defeat for the world champions.
They were roundly outplayed, losing 5-2 against FC Dallas Under-15s academy side who took full advantage of their big day.
This is the USA national team, among the best women in the world in soccer, and they were beaten—5 to 2 is a huge margin in soccer–by a team of 13-14 year-old boys. Notice the size, weight and obvious strength differential even at that age.
Final Thoughts: No legislative progress in protecting the rights of girls and women in sports will come from the US Congress. It will have to be done, state by state, and that likely almost exclusively from blue states. It is possible the girl’s lawsuit could go to the Supreme Court, however, its record on gender/sexuality is mixed at best, and the Court takes only a tiny portion of the cases presented each year, and then normally only if there is a clear split in the lower courts of appeal on a narrow issue of constitutional law.
Anyone who wishes to portray themselves as a gender they are not, may, but that decision does not carry with it any special rights. It particularly does not imbue the trans with the power to force others, or society at large, to accommodate their wishes.
We’re seeing a great many people demanding special treatment. No one of good will and rational mien is distressed by a doctor, teacher or judge who happens to be Black, but they are reasonably disturbed by a Black doctor, teacher or judge because such people are defined not by their profession and limited by the law, but are consumed by their Black identity. The same is true for people who happen to be trans as opposed to trans people. The latter tend to be militant, and tend to demand everyone else in the universe accommodate them in every imaginable way.
By failing to protect our daughters and wives, by failing to ensure their competitions are fair, we abrogate the responsibilities of manhood and citizenship in a free nation. The actual “war on women” is being fought among us, and its combatants are militant trans men pretending to be women and the D/S/C partisans who enable them.