Preface
Arguments continue when participants can’t mutually define terms. When we can’t agree on the predicates of our arguments, we can’t reach reasoned solutions. That appears to be the current circumstance on allowing trans athletes to compete in women’s sports.
42
With the development of quantum computing coming along just nicely and Microsoft’s introduction of Majorana into the mix of potential “machines” underlying artificial intelligence, we Earthlings are close to having a real HAL 9000 of 2001: A Space Odyssey, or a real Deep Thought, the famous computer of A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. But achieving that level of computing comes at a price. HAL deigns to kill off its human companions. And Deep Thought wallows in meaninglessness after spending more than seven million years computing the “answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.” Its answer is the famous “42.” Then Deep Thought admits that it doesn’t know the question for which 42 is the answer but that it could design a computer (Planet Earth) that could discover the question if it ran for 10 million years.
And that’s where we are in 2025, equipped with the most powerful computing machines since the development of the human brain, but still unable to frame and answer questions about who we are and what we should value.
What’s a Woman
Hey, Quantum Computers, I Want to Ask, What’s a Woman? Yeah. Work on that one for awhile. I’ll wait…
Enter those on either side of the trans “problem,” “situation,” or “circumstance” that has Supreme Court Justice nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson unable to define woman and female—may I surmise that?— governor Governor Janet Mills of Maine defending the participation in female sports activities those physically superior males-turned-females or males-saying-they-identify-as-females. On one side are those who argue for “inclusiveness,” whereas on the other side are those who argue for “fairness.” Even liberal Governor Gavin Newsom admits to the unfairness of males participating against females.*
The liberal media certainly seem to side with Maine’s governor. CNN framed the dustup between President Trump and Mills over transgender athletes as Trump’s attack on trans people, not as Trump’s defense of women. “The move to ban transgender women from competing in women’s sports is just one of the executive orders Trump has signed that target transgender people.” ** Target transgenders? Not defend women and Title IX? Come on, CNN, bury your TDS for your reporting.
Asterisk
In almost every instance of trans athletes participating in sports the male-turned-female defeats a woman while being nothing more than a mediocre athlete in the presence of male competitors. But in the argument, neither facts nor common sense prevail. No solutions seem to favor women other than outright banning trans athletes from competing in women’s sports to achieve “fairness.” Well what about an asterisk? Would the losing females be happy if we put an asterisk behind the record achieved by the trans athlete? We’ve put them into record books before. Roger Maris hit 61 homers to break Babe Ruth’s record—ohoh, asterisk: Ruth did it in 154 games; Maris, in 162. There! Satisfied? And those who took steroids to break the 61-homer barrier also have an asterisk beside their records.
What the defenders of trans athletes in women’s sports say is of little more value than Deep Thought’s 42. But it’s the question, not the answer, that’s important. Defenders of trans athletes in women’s sports use the word gender, which they define as “fluid” and multiple. The question for them is “What’s your gender?” Defenders of women and Title IX use the word sex, which with the rare exception of hermaphroditism, is fixed. The question they ask is “What’s your sex?”
The Olympics use the proportion of testosterone in the athlete—or, at least, they used to use it to define the athlete. In 2009, 800-meter runner Caster Semenya was directed to medically reduce “her” testosterone levels to be eligible for competition. Now, in a supposed solution to the “problem,” the Olympic Committee says transition to female has to have occurred before age 12 to prevent the effects of male puberty. As anyone who has lived on the planet knows, however, we mature at different rates; thus, someone could start puberty earlier, especially in an age of food-borne hormones and widespread vitamin use.
Not surprisingly, the defenders on the gender side of the argument can’t seem to define their term with certainty. I’ve heard some of them say there are many, even hundreds of genders, more, obviously, than there are letters in the alphabet, maybe one for each of Earth’s eight billion humans. Certainly, the failure of women testifying before Congress to define woman, is a manifestation of the confused state of mind that can’t separate gender from sex and biology from psychology.
So, what is worse than defending men in girls’ sports is the inability to frame the right question. Planet Earth, that computer Deep Thought wanted to invent, not only already exists, but it has also already framed the question AND answered it, albeit after not just seven or ten million years, but after 4.5 billion years. Yes, the actual experiment has been run on eukaryotic organisms.
Are the most athletic women better than the most athletic men? Run the experiment if you want, but you will only end up duplicating the experiment Earth has already run. No, women aren’t better at strength and speed skills. The best WNBA players would lose to the worst NBA players. Ditto soccer teams. Sprinters. Boxers. Softball girls’ teams against baseball boys’ teams. As I just said, Earth has run the experiment. You know it. I know it. Somehow the governor of Maine doesn’t know it. Recall that the US Women’s National Soccer Team lost 5-2 in a soccer game with FC Dallas (15-year-old boys) in 2017.
But defenders of males in women’s sports keep deriving the answer 42. Not because it is true; not because it frames a reality they want. They want it to be true that males do not have a physical advantage over females on average and definitely on the level of the most elite athletes. Is there a PHYSICAL difference between males and females?
Forty-two is an absurd answer, especially after Deep Thought spent millions of years deriving it. But if one really doesn’t understand the question, any answer is absurd. The Left wants to change the parameters of the experiment Planet Earth has run through sexual evolution in eukaryotic organisms. Follow its logic and you’ll be back in prokaryotic times or maybe in the lab where the most interesting race occurs as bacteria compete in a petri dish.
And once again, I fall back on my principle that whatever is not personal is meaningless and its corollary that whatever is personal is meaningful. Men in women’s sports, Governor Mills? Let’s run that to its logical end. Men in women’s restrooms, specifically in the governor’s office. Pee in a urinal, Gov. And do that next to a male as you would have high school girls do that in Maine’s high school locker rooms. Run the experiment on yourself or your five stepdaughters if you truly believe in the cause you so adamantly support. Put your stepdaughters in those locker rooms you want other parents’ daughters to use alongside males who use the gender argument.
*https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/06/politics/newsom-trans-athletes-womens-sports/index.html “Well, I think it’s an issue of fairness. I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness. It’s deeply unfair,” Newsom said in a podcast episode with conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
**https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/22/us/maine-trans-athletes-trump/index.html
Arguments continue when participants can’t mutually define terms. When we can’t agree on the predicates of our arguments, we can’t reach reasoned solutions. That appears to be the current circumstance on allowing trans athletes to compete in women’s sports.
42
With the development of quantum computing coming along just nicely and Microsoft’s introduction of Majorana into the mix of potential “machines” underlying artificial intelligence, we Earthlings are close to having a real HAL 9000 of 2001: A Space Odyssey, or a real Deep Thought, the famous computer of A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. But achieving that level of computing comes at a price. HAL deigns to kill off its human companions. And Deep Thought wallows in meaninglessness after spending more than seven million years computing the “answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.” Its answer is the famous “42.” Then Deep Thought admits that it doesn’t know the question for which 42 is the answer but that it could design a computer (Planet Earth) that could discover the question if it ran for 10 million years.
And that’s where we are in 2025, equipped with the most powerful computing machines since the development of the human brain, but still unable to frame and answer questions about who we are and what we should value.
What’s a Woman
Hey, Quantum Computers, I Want to Ask, What’s a Woman? Yeah. Work on that one for awhile. I’ll wait…
Enter those on either side of the trans “problem,” “situation,” or “circumstance” that has Supreme Court Justice nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson unable to define woman and female—may I surmise that?— governor Governor Janet Mills of Maine defending the participation in female sports activities those physically superior males-turned-females or males-saying-they-identify-as-females. On one side are those who argue for “inclusiveness,” whereas on the other side are those who argue for “fairness.” Even liberal Governor Gavin Newsom admits to the unfairness of males participating against females.*
The liberal media certainly seem to side with Maine’s governor. CNN framed the dustup between President Trump and Mills over transgender athletes as Trump’s attack on trans people, not as Trump’s defense of women. “The move to ban transgender women from competing in women’s sports is just one of the executive orders Trump has signed that target transgender people.” ** Target transgenders? Not defend women and Title IX? Come on, CNN, bury your TDS for your reporting.
Asterisk
In almost every instance of trans athletes participating in sports the male-turned-female defeats a woman while being nothing more than a mediocre athlete in the presence of male competitors. But in the argument, neither facts nor common sense prevail. No solutions seem to favor women other than outright banning trans athletes from competing in women’s sports to achieve “fairness.” Well what about an asterisk? Would the losing females be happy if we put an asterisk behind the record achieved by the trans athlete? We’ve put them into record books before. Roger Maris hit 61 homers to break Babe Ruth’s record—ohoh, asterisk: Ruth did it in 154 games; Maris, in 162. There! Satisfied? And those who took steroids to break the 61-homer barrier also have an asterisk beside their records.
What the defenders of trans athletes in women’s sports say is of little more value than Deep Thought’s 42. But it’s the question, not the answer, that’s important. Defenders of trans athletes in women’s sports use the word gender, which they define as “fluid” and multiple. The question for them is “What’s your gender?” Defenders of women and Title IX use the word sex, which with the rare exception of hermaphroditism, is fixed. The question they ask is “What’s your sex?”
The Olympics use the proportion of testosterone in the athlete—or, at least, they used to use it to define the athlete. In 2009, 800-meter runner Caster Semenya was directed to medically reduce “her” testosterone levels to be eligible for competition. Now, in a supposed solution to the “problem,” the Olympic Committee says transition to female has to have occurred before age 12 to prevent the effects of male puberty. As anyone who has lived on the planet knows, however, we mature at different rates; thus, someone could start puberty earlier, especially in an age of food-borne hormones and widespread vitamin use.
Not surprisingly, the defenders on the gender side of the argument can’t seem to define their term with certainty. I’ve heard some of them say there are many, even hundreds of genders, more, obviously, than there are letters in the alphabet, maybe one for each of Earth’s eight billion humans. Certainly, the failure of women testifying before Congress to define woman, is a manifestation of the confused state of mind that can’t separate gender from sex and biology from psychology.
So, what is worse than defending men in girls’ sports is the inability to frame the right question. Planet Earth, that computer Deep Thought wanted to invent, not only already exists, but it has also already framed the question AND answered it, albeit after not just seven or ten million years, but after 4.5 billion years. Yes, the actual experiment has been run on eukaryotic organisms.
Are the most athletic women better than the most athletic men? Run the experiment if you want, but you will only end up duplicating the experiment Earth has already run. No, women aren’t better at strength and speed skills. The best WNBA players would lose to the worst NBA players. Ditto soccer teams. Sprinters. Boxers. Softball girls’ teams against baseball boys’ teams. As I just said, Earth has run the experiment. You know it. I know it. Somehow the governor of Maine doesn’t know it. Recall that the US Women’s National Soccer Team lost 5-2 in a soccer game with FC Dallas (15-year-old boys) in 2017.
But defenders of males in women’s sports keep deriving the answer 42. Not because it is true; not because it frames a reality they want. They want it to be true that males do not have a physical advantage over females on average and definitely on the level of the most elite athletes. Is there a PHYSICAL difference between males and females?
Forty-two is an absurd answer, especially after Deep Thought spent millions of years deriving it. But if one really doesn’t understand the question, any answer is absurd. The Left wants to change the parameters of the experiment Planet Earth has run through sexual evolution in eukaryotic organisms. Follow its logic and you’ll be back in prokaryotic times or maybe in the lab where the most interesting race occurs as bacteria compete in a petri dish.
And once again, I fall back on my principle that whatever is not personal is meaningless and its corollary that whatever is personal is meaningful. Men in women’s sports, Governor Mills? Let’s run that to its logical end. Men in women’s restrooms, specifically in the governor’s office. Pee in a urinal, Gov. And do that next to a male as you would have high school girls do that in Maine’s high school locker rooms. Run the experiment on yourself or your five stepdaughters if you truly believe in the cause you so adamantly support. Put your stepdaughters in those locker rooms you want other parents’ daughters to use alongside males who use the gender argument.
*https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/06/politics/newsom-trans-athletes-womens-sports/index.html “Well, I think it’s an issue of fairness. I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness. It’s deeply unfair,” Newsom said in a podcast episode with conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
**https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/22/us/maine-trans-athletes-trump/index.html
RSS Feed