Politicrossing trangender-rights-one-sides-sense-of-fairness-hurts-women
Connect with us

Faith

Transgender Rights: One Side’s Sense of Fairness Hurts, Not Helps Women

Published

on

What do you feel when you look at this photo? I feel pity. Pity for the girl who’s being manhandled by a bigger, stronger girl who wants to be a boy. Pity for the girl who’s dissatisfied with how she’s made and is trying to remake herself. But mostly I pity the girl who, for the sake of fairness, is unfairly overmatched. If I saw this happening in person, my instinct would be to step in and stop it.fairness

Why is it happening? It’s happening because the party in power and a minority of Americans embrace an ideology that values “fairness” over rightness.

Look again at the photo. Does it look fair to you? It’s certainly not fair to female athletes whose dreams—and in some cases, bones—are being shattered for the sake of a misguided sense of fairness.

 

Let’s grapple with some biological realities. Male hormone therapy produces stronger bones and muscles. It also provides significant advantages in testosterone, which powers aggression. Testosterone produces physical advantages—just as performance enhancing drugs do. Look at the photo once more. Notice the size and strength disparity in the arms, shoulders and overall musculature.

Our cells are coded with gender-specific chromosomes—no amount of hormone therapy can change the code. All that changes is physical appearance and levels of strength and aggression. In short, hormone therapy produces masculine women and feminine men and, in women’s sports, unfair advantages.

In light of these scientific truths, is it fair to pit chemically- and physically-altered girls against other girls? If I saw my daughter in a mismatch like this, those sanctioning the mismatch would find themselves facing 185 pounds of fatherly fury. Fairness be damned.

Fair play

How’s this for fair: Create a separate competition for transgender athletes. We separate boys and girls in virtually every sport and have done so, commonsensically, for centuries. Why not give transgender athletes their own competitions and every fair opportunity to excel in their sports? Sociologists assign them their own gender categories beyond male and female—why not do the same for competition?

An obvious question arises: What if there aren’t enough transgender athletes to provide robust competition? This scenario is likely because biological transgenderism is exceedingly rare, but in the name of true fairness, isn’t it worth exploring? After all, sports dreams are at stake. So are bones. So is equality for women, ironically.

To our president and his party: Please stop pushing your version of fairness on us. You’re free to elevate it beyond virtue and into dogma within your ranks, but you have no right to force us to accept it and its dangerous detriment to our daughters and sisters. Same goes for locker rooms and restrooms. You’re not helping women move forward; you’re hurting them and setting them back.

To those who are trying to be something they’re not: God says you’re fearfully and wonderfully made. He created you in his heart before he created the world and everything in it. If you were born to be a woman or a man, it’s because that’s how he made you. He loves you deeply—as you are—so much so that he died for you.

Patrick grew up in Texas and graduated from the University of North Texas with a master’s degree in journalism and advertising. His undergraduate degree is in English and photography. He served six years in the U.S. Navy where his life was changed forever by the Lord Jesus Christ. He lives in the Sierra Nevada of Northern California with his wife, dog and two cats. He enjoys hiking and cycling, taking pictures, writing and blogging at https://luscri.com/



  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.



Faith

The Great Con Pt 4: The Racism Con

America is the least racist we have ever been!

Published

on

PolitiCrossing Founder Chris Widener explains the Great Con the left uses to convince races to hate each other so they can be separated into voting blocks. Yet America is the least racist we have ever been!

Mic.com has this to say about a recent survey:

“The study was aimed at discerning a correlation between a country’s level of economic freedom and its racial tolerance. The latter was defined by one simple question, as asked in the World Values Survey: Whom would you not want as a neighbor? Those who selected “people of other races” were categorized as intolerant for the purposes of this investigation. Countries were then ranked by percentage of responses: the fewer “intolerant” respondents, the more tolerant the country. While the Swedish researches found no conclusive results regarding any strong correlation between economic development and tolerance, a recent Washington Post article article went back to the original survey source and compiled a greater sample of data for the purposes of determining other potential relationships between a country and its perceived level of tolerance.

“According to this infographic, the U.S. falls into the most tolerant category, with only 0-4.9% of those surveyed responding that they would not want to live near people of other races. Our neighbor to the north responded in kind, while Mexico ranked in the second-tier of tolerance, making the totality of North America look like a big amalgamation of racial harmony.”

Here is Chris Widener on the Great Racism Con:

Continue Reading

Faith

Turner Classic Movies Starts “Reframed Classics” to Look at “Problematic” Classic Movies

In other words, take a look under the hood and tell you where they are bad and how you are bad for liking them.

Published

on

If you thought cancel culture might be waning, you are incorrect. Seems like the left just has to keep after anything and everything that was good in our country in the past. Take classic movies for example…

According to NBC Connecticut:

“Loving classic films can be a fraught pastime. Just consider the cultural firestorm over “Gone With the Wind” this past summer. No one knows this better than the film lovers at Turner Classic Movies who daily are confronted with the complicated reality that many of old Hollywood’s most celebrated films are also often a kitchen sink of stereotypes. This summer, amid the Black Lives Matter protests, the channel’s programmers and hosts decided to do something about it.

“The result is a new series, “ Reframed Classics,” which promises wide-ranging discussions about 18 culturally significant films from the 1920s through the 1960s that also have problematic aspects, from “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” and Mickey Rooney’s performance as Mr. Yunioshi to Fred Astaire’s blackface routine in “Swing Time.” It kicks off Thursday at 8 p.m. ET with none other than “Gone With the Wind.”

“We know millions of people love these films,” said TCM host Jacqueline Stewart, who is participating in many of the conversations. “We’re not saying this is how you should feel about ‘Pyscho’ or this is how you should feel about ‘Gone with the Wind.’ We’re just trying to model ways of having longer and deeper conversations and not just cutting it off to ‘I love this movie. I hate this movie.’ There’s so much space in between.”

So they are going to take a look at old movies that tens of millions – perhaps hundreds of millions – of people have loved over the years and “revisit” them. In other words, take a look under the hood and tell you where they are bad and how you are bad for liking them.

Along with Gone with the Wind, Psycho and Breakfast at Tiffany’s, here are some of the other movies in the left’s sights:

Swing Time
Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner
Gunga Din
The Searchers
My Fair Lady
Stagecoach
Woman of the Year
The Children’s Hour

NBC Connectucut reports:

“For “Psycho,” which will be airing on March 25, the hosts talk about transgender identity in the film and the implications of equating gender fluidity and dressing in women’s clothes with mental illness and violence. It also sparks a bigger conversation about sexuality in Alfred Hitchcock films.”

Is this just reading into something that doesn’t exist? Is it a waste of time? Should we look at these old movies and see anything other than the perspectives of people from another time? Or should we cancel them?

According to the host, she wants to have people discuss rather than cancel the movies. We’ll see:

The goal of “Reframed Classics” is to help give audiences the tools to discuss films from a different era and not just dismiss or cancel them. And Stewart, for her part, doesn’t believe that you can simply remove problematic films from the culture.

“I think there’s something to be learned from any work of art,” Stewart said. “They’re all historical artifacts that tell us a lot about the industry in which they were made, the cultures that they were speaking to.”

Continue Reading

Our Newsletter

Become a Politicrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Our Newsletter

Become a Politicrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Trending

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!
 
Send this to a friend