Democrats are existential threat to women’s sports
Democrats shout a lot about “existential threats.” They claim that Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans are existential threats to democracy, that whites are an existential threat to minorities, that climate change is an existential threat to humanity and even to the planet.
But a real existential threat is what Democrats are doing to female sports. Their insistence that transgender athletes with male bodies must be allowed to compete with biological females in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) is causing growing numbers of females to lose athletic contests and positions they should win, and increasingly causing them to be injured in the process.
Most Democrats vote in lockstep for trans sports inclusion, while most Republicans oppose it. A majority of the public opposes it too - nearly 70% in a Gallup poll reported by NBC.
The majority believes, correctly, that biological males who declare themselves female cannot be allowed to participate in female sports that rely on strength, speed, endurance, height, weight, reach, lung capacity, etc. Trans athletes with fully intact male bodies simply cannot be allowed to overpower biological females on the playing field and then shower with them afterwards.
No self-respecting athlete should even want to compete under such circumstances. College pitchers who strike out Little Leaguers are not heroes, they’re frauds. The fact that trans athletes who were also-rans as males are taking trophies from female Olympians is a travesty, but this is the Democrats’ new DEI reality.
Since testosterone treatments do not adequately reduce the advantages of trans athletes, those athletes should compete in trans categories or with males, or not at all. If that’s not inclusive enough, they should hang it up.
Yet the science of biological reality is not evident to Democrats who cannot even define “woman” anymore and who simply ignore the fact that biological sex has a far greater influence on athletic ability than “declared” gender identities.
After adamantly supporting Title IX for 50 years, Democrats should be adamantly opposed to trans athletes throwing biological females around like rag dolls, causing injuries and invading their privacy.
But most Democrats simply genuflect at the altar of DEI with platitudes about “diversity” and “inclusion.” Either they really believe this, or they just hope the issue will go away. But it won’t go away without leadership.
Women like Riley Gaines and Martina Navratilova are providing real leadership, but where are Democrats like Jahana Hayes and Maria Horn? Evidently party loyalty trumps justice, fairness, privacy and even safety.
You can declare yourself whatever gender you want, but biological sex is a fact. (Your sex, by the way, was accurately “recorded” at birth - it was not arbitrarily “assigned” as left-wing activists and journalists want you to believe.)
The Democrats’ entire DEI edifice is full of false strictures and ultimatums on everything from sports to race to education. If you disagree with them, they threaten your existence. Vote them out.
Mark Godburn
Norfolk
What does the Rule of Law mean in Connecticut these days?
The Office of Health Strategy denied the closure of labor and delivery at Sharon Hospital and just like Hartford Health Care did at Windham Hospital, Nuvance is ignoring that ruling.
How is that lawful?
Do Senator Harding and Representative Horn, a lawyer, not support their constituent’s lawful access to safe birthing at Sharon Hospital?
Does Attorney General Tong not stand for compliance to the rules established under his jurisdiction?
The Dept. of Public Health cannot require Nuvance adhere to the ruling granting access to complete reproductive healthcare at Sharon Hospital?
Where is Governor Lamont who told me that the Office of Health Strategy has the final say, and he trusts their decisions?
Why would a new hospital system entering Connecticut respect the Office of Health Strategy’s ability to establish rightful access to healthcare if the state leadership does not enforce the rulings?
Deborah Ritter Moore
Sharon
FFA article rekindles memories
Your front page headline, “Housatonic FFA testifies at state budget hearing” caught my eye and pulled me into the story. Nowhere in it, however, could I find a line telling readers what the initials FFA stand for. Sprinkled in the piece were hints: “agricultural science” and “ag-ed” and “agriscience” and “future of agriculture.”
Having grown up on a farm in rural Michigan, I remember a teacher, Dale Wightman, who taught classes in a room at our high school with a large banner that read “Future Farmers of America.” I wonder how many Housatonic Valley Regional High School students are FFA members and how many actually aspire to be farmers.
I never joined the FFA myself. Our 60-acre farm had poor sandy soil. We raised pigs and dairy cows. My mom and I had to hand-milk 3 to 5 cows twice a day while dad kept his factory job. That experience fuelled my interest in higher education. I went to Michigan State University just down the road that used to be Michigan Agricultural College, that some called “Moo U.” Its president at the time was John A, Hannah, a former poultry science major. I ended up as a journalist.
Jim Sterba
Sharon
Editor’s Note: The name of the organization was updated in 1988 to National FFA Organization to represent the broad range of agricultural careers fostered by the FFA.
