<![CDATA[New Yorker]]><![CDATA[Riley Gaines]]><![CDATA[Sports]]><![CDATA[trans women]]><![CDATA[transgender]]><![CDATA[women's rights]]><![CDATA[women]]>Featured

New Yorker Gets DRAGGED for Idiotic Attack on Defenders of Women’s Sports – Twitchy

Is this supposed to be some sort of ‘gotcha’ by The New Yorker?

Because this is a terrible attempt, if that’s what it is.





Louisa Thomas writes:

There are people who want to “save” women’s sports who don’t like women’s sports. A new study in the Sociology of Sport Journal reviewed survey data collected between 2018-19—before the issue was highly politicized—and found that opposition to transgender participation in sports was correlated with idealized views of female attractiveness and traditional gender norms. The people who were more likely to oppose transgender women competing in women’s sports were the ones who were more likely to denigrate female athletes in the first place.

But there are also people who want to narrowly define women’s sports on a natalist basis who care very much about women’s sports. Some of them are, or were, élite athletes themselves. They see the gains of women’s sports as hard-won and dependent on biological differences—differences that are real, however difficult to define.

This sum’s up the Left’s mentality perfectly: just because they don’t like something, it’s okay to damage and undermine it.

This writer doesn’t care for the WBNA, but she doesn’t want a man to take a woman’s spot. It’s possible to not be a fan of women’s sports and still recognize the inherent injustice that comes with letting boys and men on women’s teams.

Recommended

There was a time the Left wanted robust women’s sports programs.

The Left always thinks there are ulterior motives.

A completely reasonable stance that most Americans agree with.

They’re basically arguing that if you don’t have season tickets to the WNBA, you don’t get a say in this. It’s the athletic equivalent of ‘no uterus, no opinion on abortion.’

LOL. No.

Correct on all points.





That’s the level of logic The New Yorker applied here.

Safe bet.

A very isolated bubble.

They’re missing the point intentionally.




Source link

Related Posts

Load More Posts Loading...No More Posts.