Females are being displaced by males in athletic competitions across this nation and around the world. Biological males have punched women out, collected their medals and pushed them off victory podiums. The only women I know who are challenging this injustice through legal means are female student-athletes and their mothers.
This led me to launch Save Women’s Sports, a diverse coalition that seeks to preserve biology-based eligibility standards for participation in women’s sports. I’m something of an accidental activist—a mom and amateur athlete who cares about the future of women’s opportunities. You don’t need to be religious or politically active to believe that women’s sports should only be for adult biological females.
Many women are afraid to speak up. They risk losing sponsorships, relationships and jobs. But courage begets courage. That’s why I invite current and former female NCAA and professional athletes to stand up, speak up and sign their support for women’s sports.
Speaking up for women’s sports might get you in some hot water. But like First Lady Roosevelt quipped, that is when we’ll show our strength. Together, we can save women’s sports.
A mother taking a gender clinic to court to prevent it giving sex-change drugs to her autistic daughter says she wants to prevent youngsters making ‘catastrophic’ decisions that they live to regret.
The woman, who can only be called ‘Mrs A’ for legal reasons, fears her 16-year-old daughter will be fast-tracked for transgender medical treatment once she is seen by clinicians at the Gender Identity Development Service in London.
Mrs A is one of two women taking the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, which runs GIDS, to the High Court to stop it prescribing the powerful ‘puberty blocker’ drugs to those under the age of 18.
Some experts say they give children time to reflect on whether to press ahead with further treatment. But studies show the vast majority of those who take them move on to ‘cross-sex hormones’ such as testosterone for those born female.
Warning of the implications of taking the drugs, Mrs A said: ‘If you start a child on puberty blockers – and nigh-on 100 per cent of them go on to take cross-sex hormones – then you are almost putting them on cross-sex hormones there and then. You are setting them on the path of medical transition.
Tara VanDerveer has been the head women’s basketball coach at Stanford University since 1985. She once compared the world of women’s sports before 1972 to a family dinner table where the boys were served steaks and the girls were served cold hot dogs without buns or even ketchup.
And quite frankly, girls only got the “benefit” of cold hot dogs if there was any money leftover after buying all the steaks — often, there wasn’t.
Title IX, the 1972 federal law barring discrimination on the basis of sex in education, changed everything. It required that men and women receive equitable educational opportunities.
Given the history behind Title IX and how it was passed specifically to protect girls and women from a system that favored boys and men, it’s appalling that the ACLU and other organizations are now trying to undo Title IX so that a transgender girl can simply steal the steak from the biological girl seated across the table, leaving her with nothing.
Nineteen states in our country allow biological males who self-identify as women to play on women’s sports teams in schools. This means biological boys, with all the advantages of the male body, are being allowed to steal athletic opportunities from biological girls in multiple ways.
As a female powerlifter, I’m used to going up against a challenge by myself. When I spoke out in defense of saving women’s sports for women, though, I was surprised to find myself standing alone.
Women’s sports are for women. There is a reason why women’s sports exist. Biologically, men and women are fundamentally different. Men have greater muscle mass and bone density as well as different bone structures. Their cardiovascular systems are more powerful. So, when men and women go head-to-head in a sport, the man has a natural advantage — and that advantage does not go away just because that man claims a female gender identity or manipulates hormones.
I have seen that excelling in a sport can do wonders for a woman’s confidence. I have also seen that being beaten by a man in her own sport tears a woman down.
A national court in France has ruled that a man who fathered a child with his wife six years ago cannot now be listed as the child’s mother.
The French news agency RFI reported transgender activists are outraged over the decision.
In the highest court in France, the Court of Cassation in Paris, the judges concluded that “Claire,” the biological father to three children with his wife, isn’t a “mother.”
[L]awyer, Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet, explained that to decide any other way would be to “to transform that child’s personal history into fiction, in the name of adult desire.”
We are delighted to feature an interview with Spanish feminist lawyer Paula Fraga Arias. She is a representative of Contra el Borrado de las Mujeres (Against the Erasure of Women), an international alliance bringing together Spanish-speaking feminists in order to fight against the erasure of women’s rights resulting from the conflict between sex-based rights and ‘gender identity’ policies.
Gender is the rocky outcrop that gives safe harbour to the sexual subordination of women and the violence wrought upon us under patriarchy. That is how feminist theory defines it.
However, antifeminist and sexist theories – like queer theory – define gender as people’s internal life or a display of personality, and so they refer to a ‘gender identity’. Where feminist theory sees structural oppression, queer theory sees individual identity.
And this is what is being institutionalised through identity laws. The first problem with this substitution is that it does not fights against what we need to see abolished, but instead it reinforces it and protects it.
The legal eradication of sex, as a category, has dire consequences for women. To say that any male who identifies as a woman, and who with nothing more than their own declaration has be recognised as such, undermines women’s rights and compromises our spaces. A concrete example: categories of women’s sports are being placed at risk if trans (wo)men being accepted as competitors, putting at stake women’s right to compete on a level playing field and their physical safety.
In general terms, we can say that substituting sex-based rights for gender-based rights is a legal aberration, with important, prejudicial, practical implications for all women. It renders useless both any positive sexual discrimination and any public policies to fight sexual inequality. . . .
[U]nder patriarchy, it is men who overwhelmingly kill women, rape women, exploit women (sexually and reproductively), they force marriages on us and genitally mutilate us, just for being female. Yet there is a posh, post-modern activism that argues that, whilst we are suffering these harsh realities, dedicates itself to calling us privileged. This is on top of the accusations of transphobia against women who are simply talking about their bodies. How often are we accused of transphobia simply for speaking about bodily realities? . . .
Transactivism is badly named because you can’t call harassing women activism. The reaction from queer and transgender groups against me has been virulent. They refuse to debate, full stop. They have tried to discredit my work with personal attacks and insults. When I published an article that was critical of queer theory, they started a bullying campaign on social media that lasted days, and I’ve had threats of both violence and death on numerous occasions.
[R]ecent events have forced me, like many others, to think much harder than I have been used to about feminism. The immediate cause is a conflict of opinion about transgender activism and the reasons behind an increase in the number of girls referred for treatment for gender dysphoria in England, from 32 in 2009/10 to 1,740 in 2018/19. But debate on these issues has exposed a faultline with wider implications.
Understanding sexual difference to be an important facet of human experience, we seek a form of equality that recognises it. We do not accept the much newer concept of gender identity (the feeling of being male or female) as a substitute. And we think the idea that “sex” can be discarded in favour of more inclusive terminology, as advocated by Butlerian feminists, is naive. Because if “sex” ceases to be talked and thought about, how will we recognise and tackle sex-based oppression, not just in western countries but around the world?
None of this means “GC” feminists are in favour of bigotry, or don’t care about the obstacles and prejudices faced by transgender people, or that we deny the existence of people with differences in sex development. What it does mean is that we think rejecting sex as a way of thinking about ourselves would be a terrible error. And that we urgently want to be able to discuss this, in a respectful way, with those who disagree.
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court has close ties to a charismatic Christian religious group that holds men are divinely ordained as the “head” of the family and faith. Former members of the group, called People of Praise, say it teaches that wives must submit to the will of their husbands.
In mid-July, I was informed that trans-activist Stephanie Hayden had launched yet another legal action, this time against Adrian Yalland – which (according to Adrian’s calculations) is the 24th such legal action Hayden has brought. Adrian is apparently the 28th person Hayden has sued for harassment, libel or both. Some, like me, Hayden has targeted more than once.
Adrian therefore prepared an Application to have the court strike-out the claim, to be heard at the same time as Hayden’s Application for an injunction against Adrian, which was so restrictive, it would never be granted, as it was a blatant attempt to prevent Adrian assisting other people Hayden is suing.
Hayden was told his own conduct was under scrutiny and that it was “ironic” Hayden was seeking to use the law to silence Adrian, whilst using social media to repeatedly target Adrian for abuse and harassment. The judge said Hayden was quite used to “dishing it out”, the inference being he was not a victim of harassment.
AU — Sydney. The guideline used by all major Australian children’s hospital gender clinics for gaining informed consent before prescribing sex-hormones to children is unlawful, according to a ruling this month by a family court in Sydney.In this case, the mother opposes hormonal and surgical intervention; the child lives with his father, who supports it. “Any treating medical practitioner seeing an adolescent under the age of 18 is not at liberty to initiate (puberty blockers, opposite sex hormones or trans surgery) without first ascertaining whether or not a child’s parents or legal guardians consent to the proposed treatment,” Judge Watts said.Hormonal treatment — puberty blockers to stop natural hormones followed by hormones to encourage opposite-sex external characteristics — has the potential to make young people infertile, incapable of orgasm, and has unknown long-term effects on mental and physical health.