The Death Of Women’s Sports.

A male athlete recently took All-State honors for high school track & field in Alaska.

Problem: he is racing against girls.

As the Daily Caller reports:

High school girls in Alaska are crying foul after a male sprinter took home all-state honors in girls’ track and field. According to local reports, it was the first time in Alaskan history that a male athlete competed in the girls’ state championships. Haines senior Nattaphon Wangyot–who self-identifies as a girl–advanced to the state finals in the 100-meter and 200-meter events. He won fifth place in the 100-meter dash and third place in the 200-meter. In both events, he competed against girls as young as ninth grade.

Anyone who speaks out publicly against this will be branded a toxic homophobe, of course. So most people will stay quiet about the matter. What about the girls he’s beating out?

One of the girls Wangyot beat out for a slot at the state meet, Hutchison runner Emma Daniels, took issue with allowing a male athlete to compete in girls events.“I’m glad that this person is comfortable with who they are and they’re able to be happy in who they are, but I don’t think it’s competitively completely 100-percent fair,” she told a local CBS station.

That’s funny. The girl is clearly afraid of confrontation, as many young girls are, and she fears being branded a homophobic unperson. So she prefaces her displeasure with the homosexual equivalent of “I’m not racist, but…”

She is afraid to say what she’s really feeling: “Who’s the idiot that let this guy in to steal my shot at victory?”

The takeaway here is simple: Women’s sports, in principle, no longer exist. If all it takes to compete in a women’s league is to self-identify as a woman, then the barriers to entry are officially gone.

You could say the same thing about men’s sports. But there is a key difference: On-the-whole, men will dominate women in sports about 99% of the time.

Think about it this way: Men now have two difficulty settings they can choose for sports – Normal mode for competing against other men, and Easy mode for competing against women.

But what about female athletes? They get the shaft, figuratively speaking. They have Normal mode for competing in a women’s league, and Impossible mode for competing in a men’s league. Tough luck, ladies. They don’t get an Easy mode, unless they self-identify as disabled and go into the Paralympics.

So really, the destruction of female-only sports as a concept means this: all sports are male-oriented. Once again, the focus will return entirely to men.

This demonstrates something else interesting: liberal infighting ahead. It’ll be feminists vs. transsexuals. Feminists will stumble at first. “Well, I, uh, er… if he… I mean, she… is comfortable… ummmm… “ They’ll freeze up. They want the moral catharsis of supporting transsexualism. But the whole thing will make them uncomfortable, deep down.

At some point, male transsexuals are going to push for full equality with women. They will want to be treated as if having a penis is no less feminine than not.

Liberal girls who previously craved the moral catharsis of supporting transsexualism will realize that male transsexuals are trying to climb into their boat from out of the sea of morbid fascination. I am quite certain that a vast majority of liberal females will resent this either consciously or subconsciously, especially the attractive ones. They know that no matter how hard a dude tries to be a woman, he will never have the same feminine value that they have. So expect the united front of social relativism to crack in that area.


Modern left-liberalism in America is based heavily on identity politics and aggrievement. “You – the blacks, the gays, the Hispanics, the women, the Islamic, the poor, the felons, the whatever – you are so aggrieved! You need us, the gallant white liberals, to save you!”

But only one can be the most aggrieved. And in modern liberalism, aggrieved = appeased. So who gets to be the most aggrieved? Which less-aggrieved identity groups will bow down to the most aggrieved? If what we saw recently at an LGBT Orlando vigil crashed by angry Black Lives Matter people is any indication, groups jockeying for the position of “most aggrieved” will not play nice together.

In my world, the above issue about women’s sports wouldn’t be a problem. First of all, there would be no government-run sports leagues, meaning the kind run in public schools. All sports leagues would be run privately – think “bar league” for teenagers.

Second, it would be up to the people running the league – whether it be parents, private owners, church leaders, whoever – if they wanted to have gender-specific sports. If they don’t want a man competing against women, that’s their right to choose. If they do want to allow men to compete against women, that’s their right as well. They will both deal with whatever positive or negative consequences come from their own decision. For all I know, maybe the parents in the Alaskan high school sports league in question would choose to allow boys to compete against girls, if given the choice. So, they’ll deal with that.

But there would be no Big Pappy government to stick a gun in my belly: “Let this guy run against girls in your sports league, or else.”

Tags: , , ,

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: