Even the Telegraph repeats the lie
Round up the usual manipulations.
Fencer disqualified for refusing to compete against transgender opponent
No. Female fencer disqualified for refusing to compete against male opponent. The problem is not that he’s transgender, the problem is that he’s male.
USA Fencing has backed a transgender athlete after a female opponent refused to compete in their match and instead took a knee in protest.
No. Again. USA Fencing has backed a male athlete after a female opponent refused to compete in their match. Issue not transgender; issue male.
Sullivan transferred to Wagner College’s women’s team, having previously competed in the men’s division. On Wednesday, USA Fencing came out in support of Sullivan after footage of the protest went viral.
The statement read: “USA Fencing enacted our current transgender and non-binary athlete policy in 2023. The policy was designed to expand access to the sport of fencing and create inclusive, safe spaces. The policy is based on the principle that everyone should have the ability to participate in sports and was based upon the research available of the day.”
But of course a policy of allowing men to compete against women does not create inclusive, safe spaces. It does the exact opposite of that. It forces women to compete against men. That’s not safe for women and it’s not inclusive of women.
“We understand that the conversation on equity and inclusion pertaining to transgender participation in sport is evolving. USA Fencing will always err on the side of inclusion…”
No no no no. No pats on your own back. You are not erring on the side of inclusion. You are erring on the side of excluding women. You might as well call it “inclusive” to let adult male gorillas compete in wrestling matches.
“designed to expand access to the sport of fencing? The male fencer already had access to the sport of fencing. He competed in the men’s division. Letting him take a spot in the women’s division decreases women’s access to the sport of fencing. He’s taking up a place in the women’s division; that prevents a woman from any participation in fencing at all. That’s not “expanding access”; that’s reducing women’s access to the sport. Words, how do they work?
Good point.
Once again, this story points out the fact that simply lowering testosterone doesn’t negate male physical advantage. All that amounts to is an excuse to let males compete as if they were female. They’re not and it’s not fair to women to pretend they are.
I know it’s old fashioned, but when I see sentiments like this: “The policy is based on the principle that everyone should have the ability to participate in sports and was based upon the research available of the day.” I want to revive the use of the term “everyman” as it actually describes what they mean, where “everyone” doesn’t.