I Have Permission

In various circles, the debate on biological men no longer being able to compete in women’s sport thanks to the World Athletics ruling on testing for the SRY gene has sparked ire from at least some men and, surprisingly, women, mostly those who would rather see inclusion over fairness, even if it means the eventual erosion of women’s sport. Many online posts criticizing the measure don’t actually address the issue itself, at least how it relates to women. Instead, those who have contrary opinions take a page from Nikki Hilts’ How to Debate book and use made-up or skewed facts and loads of whataboutism as a basis for their argument. 

The other day on X (Twitter), a lady grabbed Nikki's example and ran with it when she wrote the following: “if you’re a person tweeting about this today under the guise of 'protecting women' and you’ve never said a word about eating disorders, abusive coaches, or predatory sponsor contracts (Nike), I just don’t believe that you care about women’s sports”

This was in response to the following tweet: “Story from here in Tokyo. Sex tests brought in after data showed 50-60 DSD athletes in global and regional finals between 2000 and 2023, World Athletics says. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/sep/19/sex-tests-brought-in-after-data-showed-50-60-dsd-athletes-in-finals-world-athletics-says “

I'm not sure about the responder’s stance on the topic —I can guess, but there’s a slim chance I could be wrong— but I’m in the unique position of having written about all of the topics she mentions, and also having addressed biological men in women's sport. That means, according to her logic, that I care about women’s sports (I do), but, again, according to her, a lot of others who speak up do not. I don't think she counted on any individuals having addressed both issues, though. 

But what if we apply that same logic the other way? Can I then call anyone out and claim she doesn't give a shit about female athletes because she dismissed one issue relating to women's competition?

Obviously, this kind of black-and-white thinking won't lead to civil debate or any kind of resolution. I doubt the poster meant it to. If you hold up a "Save The Seals" sign and someone starts yapping about the hippopotami and the dhole, the conversation is hijacked, and the focus moves away from saving any animals at all. Those who engage in distraction are not usually the types who want any actual discourse. It's virtue signaling more than an attempt to contribute to the conversation.

My intention isn't to be an asshole here, however, if you truly care about women's sports, you should also care about a fair and safe playing field for them. That's very basic. Yes, abusive coaches, equal pay, childcare needs, and a long list of other issues are also important, but if women are competing at a disadvantage, they can not succeed as athletes. They will be unable to make a decent living competing against those who have a physical advantage. And, in the cases of Rugby and other contact sports, they are at a greater risk for injury when the danger is already high. 

Men and women sustain different types of injuries, and while men tend to get injured more severely playing rugby, which is why you wouldn't really want to invite that into women's sports, women are more susceptible to concussions and other types of injuries when they are hit or hit the ground. This is usually because women have less isometric neck strength than men.

Since this poster attempted to move the conversation away from the article, I’ll return to it by stating that the author points out that between the years 2000 and 2023, 50-60 athletes competed in the female category in global and continental championships despite having gone through male puberty. 

This is a long-winded way of saying around 50-60 male athletes cheated by racing against women, and some of them were participating in multiple events. That’s also not including many lesser events with prize money around the world, and it's likely that number is actually higher. I think it's important to acknowledge the ways women lose out when they are forced to compete against biological men if you do, in fact, care about women’s sports.

Moving away from sports and addressing everyday issues, I’ve mentioned before that I never want to offend anyone, but I find using incorrect pronouns difficult. The world is hard enough as it is, so I don't want to contribute to anyone feeling bad. I've certainly called some trans women "she" in real life so that I avoid hurting feelings. I'm less likely to do so now, but it all depends on the circumstances. In some instances, I'm not actually sure what's right. In others, it's obvious what's not right. 

In all cases, though, men and boys will never become women or girls no matter what surgeries they have, clothes they wear, or feelings they feel. Still, it's easier to have empathy for anyone struggling with gender dysphoria than it is for a criminal who is LARPing as a woman and committing men’s sexual crimes and worse.

I often wonder how it would be if I insisted people refer to me as "fatty" because I identify as a heavier person and feel like one most of the time. Ultimately, no matter how I feel about myself, I would never force anyone to play along with or contribute to my distorted reality of my body.

It’s always a relief when I meet someone like the gentleman I know from work who cross-dresses but still uses his given name and associated pronouns. I love that he embraces who he is and doesn't make everyone around him feel uncomfortable about how to address him. He's just who he is, and that's about as cool as it gets.

The use of "they" pronouns is even more confounding, and I really struggle with it. I met someone who claimed she "almost went by the pronoun they but decided against it,'" thus suggesting it's not necessarily about anything concrete, just something in vogue, a way to feel special. It seems even those who call themselves by a plural pronoun have trouble explaining non-binary. Non-binary is a fairly recent term that developed, similar to gender, as a social construct, yet those who claim they are often end up demanding special rights. It's fine to encourage broad expressions of identity, but not at the expense of reality or others.

I don't have any real solutions except to keep digging into the topic and listening to others. Mostly, I will continue speaking up about women's rights because, as a former athlete and as a woman, these issues matter to me. Being kind to one group doesn't have to include the erosion of someone else's rights.

On a separate note, my last short post on Malcolm Gladwell has drawn a lot of attention. I'm never sure why one post generates interest while another one falls flat, but thank you to anyone willing to read my blog posts. If you're looking for something more uplifting, I also review cheese on my blog, Say Cheese! I have some fun reviews in mind coming up for that one. And, though I'm terrible at asking for anything, especially money, my Venmo is @lizefb if you’re feeling generous and would like to help keep me writing. Or, consider a donation to my charity, Romo's Rescue Fund. We assist pet owners and other charities with veterinary costs and provisions. To date, we have put in over $10,000 and have helped save a lot of furry friends. We have also assisted with end-of-life care when the time comes. Just today, we covered the veterinary bill for someone in need, so we are grateful for any support at all

Malcolm Gladwell's Sad Apology

This isn't a full blog post; it's more a response to the recent The Science of Sport podcast episode, hosted by Ross Tucker and Mike Finch, featuring Malcolm Gladwell. I can't top Sarah Barker's take or J.K. Rowling's response on Twitter (X), but below are some thoughts I've had. I really hope people take the time to click on the two previous links and absorb what Rowling and Barker are saying. 

Immediately after Gladwell, with all the panache of Alvy Singer, confessed that he was cowed --as others pointed out, he should have said "I was a coward" instead -- into supporting trans athletes in women's sport, Tucker went on social media in an effort to defend Gladwell and call him an ally. Tucker is usually a most reasonable, level-headed, fair, and considerate individual, and he wanted people to move beyond Gladwell's comment and listen to the rest of the interview. He felt, controversy aside, Gladwell made some interesting points during their conversation. I can't say I agree that Gladwell's ideas about scoring for cross country are among them, but Tucker seemed to think this and other topics of discussion were worth a listen. 

It's probably hard for men or those who favor inclusion over fairness to understand how angry some of us are for being abandoned, criticized, called bigots and other names, and penalized for standing up for women. Again, Sarah Barker and J.K. Rowling summed everything up very concisely, so I won't beat a dead horse too much more. I agree with Sarah, though, that when Tucker compared his evolution on the topic to Gladwell's, he was wrong. 

The major difference is that while Tucker has always voiced his opinion based on his knowledge at the time (as many of us have), Gladwell knowingly lied and omitted the truth. And he is considered a journalist, a prominent cultural thinker and such. Tucker changed his stance after conducting further research and after more information became available. Gladwell admitted that he knew there was a male advantage at the time he was supporting the idea of inclusion in the female category.

Several people have brought up other ways in which Gladwell either outright lied or distorted the truth. Those of you familiar with the Munk Debates may remember back in 2022 when Gladwell and Michelle Goldberg attempted to debate Matt Taibbi and Douglas Murray on the topic of trusting the mainstream media. Perhaps if Gladwell hadn't been so busy trying to come up with cringy zingers to hurl at his opposition, he could have focused on the debate itself; however, not only did he fail miserably to sway the audience, he lied and got called out on previous lies as well. He has admitted bias regarding his book The Tipping Point and wrote inaccurately about Northern Ireland in his book David and Goliath. The guy is just not trustworthy. 

Taibbi addressed what happened during the Munk Debate in a Substack post and on X (Twitter). Gladwell is really good at twisting the facts, yet, at the time, he wanted to assure everyone that it's OK to trust the media. It's good to trust the media. You can trust the media. During the debate, Gladwell suggested Taibbi was longing for the days of Jim Crow because Taibbi made reference to a respected reporter, Walter Cronkite. It was so off base that I was actually surprised Gladwell had the balls to lie so blatantly in public. Why he didn't immediately apologize is beyond me, but Gladwell only seems interested in apologizing if it serves him in some way. 

Since the tide is turning and public opinion overwhelmingly supports the extreme notion that women actually just might deserve sex-based rights, Gladwell is suddenly "brave" enough to come forward and admit he was a wanker. But as a cherry on top for those of us who see who Gladwell is, think what you will about Douglas Murray, his response to Gladwell's continual disrespect during the debate was fucking brilliant. 

In The Science of Sport podcast, Gladwell also suggested that he's an authoritarian when it comes to dopers in sport, but then went on to suggest that we should welcome those who have served bans back into the sport with open arms. This is pretty much the opposite of being an authoritarian. I've stated plenty of times that I'm for lifetime bans. I realize, and Tucker also pointed out on social media, that lifetime bans wouldn't be feasible because of legal factors, but there needs to be some sort of zero-tolerance policy put into place, not just for the athletes but for everyone involved. 

The whole system is so completely fucked right now that it's almost pointless to debate the topic. More money put toward testing, better testing methods, fewer corrupt officials and athletes, and stricter punishments could possibly improve the situation slightly. I'm afraid professional and even amateur sport is so dirty that it's beyond repair. 

The way testing works now is that, as ridiculous as an excuse might be (burrito contamination), we are forced to accept the possibility that the explanation for why the athlete tested positive could be accurate and not assume the person knowingly used performance enhancers. 

It would be like watching someone in a wig and big sunglasses carrying a large bag around a store looking suspicious, and then getting stopped by employees right outside of the store. When a search of her bag reveals unpaid items from the shelves inside, we must assume that they could have accidentally fallen into her zipped-up sack. Or maybe someone else put them there! 

While most everyone knows the items are stolen, several people will actually believe they're not and defend the thief. Other people will know they're stolen and still defend the thief. Very few will both know the truth and actually condemn the thief, and even those who do will be forced to admit that there's a possibility, no matter how small, that she could, in theory anyway, be innocent. Because that's the way the law works. In rare cases, lifetime bans have been handed out for certain classes of drugs after a certain number of violations have been reached in certain sports, or for gambling or other violations. 

I'm not saying we should take anyone's right to due process away, but the way things are being run now is a farce. Technology will never catch up to new methods of doping, and money will always be too much of a factor. Organizations don't want to bust big names that draw spectators, and improved testing costs too much money. Athletes want to win, so there's also their incentive to consider. And all of this isn't even touching on the more subtle ways of cheating, like using thyroid medication or other substances that can potentially improve performance but are not on any lists of banned drugs. 

On that bright and cheery note, I say adieu until the next time. Excuse any errors. I rushed through this and might need to go back and do some editing later..or not.