Friday, March 4, 2022

Has Lia Thomas No Shame? UPDATE: Not according to SI

 National Review

The SI piece refuses to delve very deeply into the controversy, making the profile a thinly disguised puff piece.



"Lia Thomas, the male swimmer currently dominating female Ivy League swimming, is utterly shameless. And so is Robert Sanchez, the writer who profiled Thomas in an exclusive interview for Sports Illustrated. Sanchez writes:
In her first year swimming for the Penn women’s team after three seasons competing against men, Thomas throttled her competition. She set pool, school and Ivy League records en route to becoming the nation’s most powerful female collegiate swimmer.

"It is true that Thomas “throttled” the competition. But the rest is a lie. Thomas is not “en route to becoming the nation’s most powerful female collegiate swimmer” because Thomas is not actually a female swimmer

"Thomas tells Sanchez, “I want to swim and compete as who I am.” Very well. But athletes should also compete according to what they are — male or female. To ignore this biological distinction is to make a mockery of female sports.". . . 

'Sports Illustrated' Profile of Trans Swimmer Lia Thomas – PJ Media   "How can you write more than 4,000 words about transgender swimmer Lia Thomas and not mention that Thomas’s rank when swimming as a man was 462? The Sports Illustrated profile of Thomas mentions right at the top that when swimming as a female, Thomas is ranked number one in the NCAA.

"Somehow, it kinda slipped SI author Robert Sanchez’s mind that Thomas, when swimming as a man, was a mediocre swimmer. And that omission illustrates the problem with SI’s profile of Lia Thomas.". . . 

Gender dysphoria is real and those afflicted with it deserve our sympathy and support. It’s a shame that those who wish to have a serious discussion about the issues surrounding transgenderism are automatically branded as haters if they don’t toe the trans line on athletics.

"Haters", "Racists"; how can those two words shut down the use of wisdom and reason? TD

No comments: