Now, you might think that the institution of women’s sports, such as in the Olympics, would be given immunity to the ideological trend toward minoritarianism uber alles exemplified by the recent trans rights mania.
Anyone with any self-awareness should grasp that women’s sports are based on a Plessy v. Ferguson type “separate but equal” system because women can’t compete with men at the highest levels except in a few anomalous sports like shooting and English Channel swimming.
That’s because the vast majority of sports were invented by males as tests of masculinity.
Thus, the tiny number of individuals born with birth defects making them “intersex” can have sizable innate advantages over genuine women. Thus, women’s sports need to have systems for determining who is actually a woman.
But who can remember obvious facts like that? Therefore, the NYT Magazine runs a big article
For years, international sports organizations have been policing women for “masculine” qualities — and turning their Olympic dreams into nightmares. But when Dutee Chand appealed her ban, she may have changed the rules.
By RUTH PADAWER
JUNE 28, 2016
As I wrote about Chand last year:
Of course, judging by India’s remarkable track record in the Olympics (India’s national sporting motto: Thank Vishnu for Bangladesh!), having the testosterone level of an Indian male probably won’t turn Chand into Flo-Jo.
Amusingly, the new NYT article is almost exactly like a Taki’s Magazine column I wrote during the last Olympics over a similar case, just more clueless. I wrote:
The Last Hurdle in Sports
by Steve Sailer
August 15, 2012
I turned on the TV and saw a new reality show with an intriguing premise: How big of a head start does a white woman need to outrun a black man? While skinny women frantically raced toward the finish line, a muscular black youth sportingly spotted them a 30-meter lead, then accelerated effortlessly and overtook all but the most desperately striding Russian woman.
But this turned out to be the Olympic 800-meter race for women, even though the silver medalist, South Africa’s Caster Semenya, is built like an LSU cornerback.
Now, there really are a tiny percentage of people with birth defects who look, sort of, like a girl on the outside, but feel like a boy on the inside. Why? Because they pretty much are a boy on the inside. I have a fair amount of sympathy for them because they didn’t choose their condition, unlike the more celebrated fetishist community of decathletes, sci-fi movie directors, and economists.
But individuals with undescended testicles tend to have a huge advantage at sports over actual females.
As I wrote during the 2012 Olympics:
But who cares about majority rights? Even women’s rights are a fairly old-shoe cause compared to the ascendant LGBTQIA crusade. Elite global opinion has thus rallied to Semenya’s right to the privileges of womanhood on the newfound principle that the world must accept the claim of anybody to be any sex.
What if the heavyweight boxing champion Klitschko brothers, Vitali and Wladimir, tire of fighting men and decide to enter women’s boxing in the 2016 Olympics? Should they be allowed to pummel women merely by declaring themselves the Klitschko sisters?
The Klitschko brothers would no doubt consider that unmanly and dishonorable. If you suggested it to them, they might hit you, and that could hurt.
Progressive moral preening is made plausible only by the survival of the majority’s old-fashioned morals. Indeed, the Semenya cause is hardly about establishing principles. Instead, it’s the latest way to assert one’s sophistication over the unenlightened. It’s all part of the war on homophobia…or stereotypes…or maybe apartheid.
The elite rationalizations aren’t logical, but the mood music is irresistible: Minoritarianism has been a winning hand for so long that everybody knows you won’t get in trouble pushing even this reductio ad absurdum. In this century, who has ever gotten ahead by demanding fair play for the majority?