You know society is devolving when men criticize a woman for defending girls. I refer to the overreaction by three local men to a remark that Redmond City Council member Krisanna Clark-Endicott made in February.
She had agreed with South Dakota’s decision to keep biological males out of girls’ sports. Males who have already gone through puberty will always have denser bones and greater muscle mass, lung capacity and blood volume than biological girls — even after hormone treatments. Their narrower pelvises are also more efficient for running.
Given these biological differences, the states of Alabama, South Dakota, Kansas and Tennessee have formally legislated against pitting biological males against girls in sports, but Oregon remains dominated by Portland culture and, in a cult-like denial of reality, forces biological females to put up with it.
Some have had enough. Tired of losing every track meet, title and athletic scholarship to two physical males, three teenage girls sued the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference last year. One of them, Selena Soule, expressed in an interview — “When we line up in front of our blocks and get into position, we all know how this race will end. We can’t win.”
In an angry response, a slew of Connecticut sports clubs, human rights groups, LGBT organizations and the state Department of Education condemned the girls’ lawsuit. Former President Donald Trump signed an executive order to restrict girls sports to biological females, but President Joe Biden rescinded the order on his first day in office and restored the Title IX order for transgender athletic “equity.”
The issue has hit home now that three local men, John Riggs, Eric Garrity and Clifford Evelyn, criticized Councilor Clark-Endicott for her support for biologically separate sports.
First, Garrity said it was wrong to “mock” the transgender population because of its high suicide rate. But one of the world’s most outspoken ex-transgender people, Walt Heyer, attests that self-discomfort from dissociative disorder or body dysmorphia accounts for most of their depression — not society’s behavior.
Undermining the opportunities for biological girls in order to cater to a tiny fraction of athletes is grossly unfair. An open gender division would be kinder than relegating all biological females to virtual coed sports.
Next, Riggs called Endicott’s remark “transphobic” and “clearly bigoted.” How does shielding females from physical domination by males fit either of those labels? Enraged, illogical hyperbole is a sad substitute for reason.
Lastly, Redmond City Councilor Clifford Evelyn claimed that Clark-Endicott’s statement was “contrary to us being a welcoming city.” It’s worse to be a delusional city. Would he want his daughter’s athletic hopes to be crushed by a biological male on the track or the wrestling mat? I think not.
All three men should have praised Clark-Endicott for wanting sports to be biologically fair. Given all the “safe spaces” that activists demand for participants in the victimhood Olympics, I’m surprised there’s no recognition of biological girls — but that would create a nightmare of conflicting, intersectional rights.
Instead, Riggs, Garrity and Evelyn staged a virtue-signaling contest against Clark-Endicott’s belief that girls sports shouldn’t mean coed sports. They seem happy to accept the redefinition the female sex without their permission and push them to the back of the sports bus for the sake of anyone appropriating their identity.
I’m calling foul. Men like these belong in Portland, not Redmond.
