Saturday, June 22, 2024

Sen. Kennedy Explains Why Men Shouldn’t Play Women’s Sports in a Way Even Dems Can Understand

 Matt Margolis – PJ Media

Now, Democrats have, in the past sixteen years or so, gone all in on the idea that the physical and biological differences between males and females are irrelevant to what someone 'identifies" as, yet, as Kennedy so succinctly explains, the moment you let a male play on a women's sport's team just because he "identifies" as a woman, he's got a built-in advantage, and will steal opportunities from his female counterparts.


"Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) has become known for his simple yet incisive takedowns of Biden nominees and Democrat expert witnesses. His pointed questioning often reveals glaring shortcomings, leading to some of Biden's picks withdrawing from consideration due to their evident lack of qualifications. You just gotta love him. More recently, he's also been an outspoken critic of Joe Biden's assault on women's sports.

"Earlier this year, Joe Biden, in a blatant move to pander to the radical gender activists of his party, leveraged his executive power to unilaterally rewrite Title IX, the 1972 civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded educational programs and has significantly expanded women's access to sports in education. Biden's unilateral revision restored the Obama-era change that made gender identity and biological sex equal in the eyes of the law, thus allowing transgender-identifying male athletes to compete on women's and girls' sports teams and use their locker rooms. 

"Title IX is clear and explicit in its focus on biological sex, without any mention of concepts like "gender identity" or "gender expression" that have been concocted by radical left-wing gender activists, and thankfully, last week, a federal judge ruled that the Biden administration “engaged in unlawful agency action taken in excess of their authority, all while failing to adhere to the appropriate notice and comments requirements when doing so.” . . .

No comments: