Very real differences

In the raging debate about who gets to use which bathroom, I come down squarely on the side of abandoning all gender distinctions in the loo.

This idea of separate facilities is a very recent convention.

But in this raging debate over gender identity, there is one very real, very quantified and very under-appreciated issue.

Sports.

Sports prove, and the evidence is absolutely there, that biologically born women and biologically born men ARE different. Men are about 10 percent better.

Fact. Reality. Empirical. Proven. Recorded. Etc.

Does this hold true once you get past the elite athlete level? After 30+ years of covering high school sports, I say yes.

At the high school level, boys hit harder, run faster, throw faster, move faster etc etc etc. Watch high school basketball. Look at scores in boys games v. girls games. Heck, WATCH the games. Look at any sport that has M and F teams.

So, and it please the court of public opinion, comes the question: Is it fair to let people who birth-gender swap compete directly against unswapped birth-gender athletes?

The evidence (the evidence, the evidence, the evidence, the evidence, the evidence, the evidence, the evidence) appears to point to this: Letting a gender-swapped biologically born boy compete in girls sports is going to give the swapper a definite edge. Letting a bio born girl gender swapped to a boy compete against boys is going to put the swapper at a distinct disadvantage.

At the elite amateur level (think international and Olympic-level sports) and many pro sport levels, this is pretty settled. No "performance enhancing drugs." In other words, no testosterone shots. If your body can't naturaly produce it, you can't have it. You can't augment either.

So what about it? Let gender-swapped compete against their chosen gender or against their birth gender peers?

I don't have an opinion. I'm just amused by this and the splodey heads this will create.