I’ve gotten quite a giggle these past few months over the entrance into women’s sports events of biological men who claim to be women. A curious thing happens when that’s permitted: the winner of the event is always a biological man. As my Roman ancestors might have said, mirabile dictu! (Or as a contemporary American would probably put it, “Whoda thunk it?”)
Needless to say, some women – especially women involved in women’s sports – are rather exercised about the whole thing. I can understand it perfectly. Indeed, my sympathy is boundless – right up to the point where those women are posed a very simple question:
That’s when the hemming and hawing begins.
I have no problem with a man of effeminate characteristics changing his appearance, his dress, and his manner to resemble that of a woman and thereafter living as if he is female, just as long as he doesn’t use his altered appearance to commit a crime or an interpersonal deception. That practice has been going on for quite some time, really. I’ve written about such men in my novels Experiences and The Wise and the Mad. If criminality and cruelty are absent, so is any objection I might make.
But for a well developed, athletically gifted man to exploit the current “transgenderism” craze to enter women-only sporting events is beyond any possible justification. A word I cordially detest in most contexts — unfair — is the only possible evaluation.
What’s that? You’re seriously asking why? Genetics, my good man, genetics! The Y chromosome and what goes along with it confer immense physical advantages on men over women, statistically speaking. It’s why women-only sporting competitions exist.
I would hope that the Gentle Readers of Liberty’s Torch don’t need to have that explained to them. I think far too much of you folks. But from here we move to a couple of related topics that are, shall we say, likely to generate high emotions. I think you’ll find the contrast in attitudes illuminating.
Just as men and women differ physically, they also differ emotionally. Here again there is general if not entirely comfortable agreement. Women are more emotionally driven than men. They tend to be more dependent on their support groups than are men. (Indeed, men seldom have “support groups,” unless you count the neighborhood tavern’s collection of regular attendees.) Women are more concerned with winning the consensus of their social circles than are men.
Genetics again? Hard to say with perfect confidence, but the pattern is well established, impossible to gainsay. The same is true for the well established differences between the sexes in occupational preferences. Far fewer women are attracted to the STEM fields than are men. Despite decades of effort to attract increasing numbers of women into the scientific and technological fields, men still heavily outnumber women in all of them.
The point here is not some sort of invidious comparison. The sexes differ in several ways. The ability of one of them to conceive and bear a child is only one such. It’s not about “better” or “worse.” It’s certainly not about “value.” It’s about perceptible, enduring differences that have resisted efforts to change them and being frank about them, just as we’re frank about the athletic differences between the sexes.
Breeding matters. It always has and always will.
While there are probably characteristics one cannot breed for, it’s definite that there are things one can breed for. Physical beauty and physical prowess are among them. Why are there so many beautiful women in Southern California? Because attractive women who sought to enter the world of cinema, whether or not they succeeded in doing so, remained there, married handsome men, and produced children from those matings. No, not all of their offspring were absolute stunners, but a percentage of them were. A higher percentage than one would find elsewhere in these United States. The same is true for athletic potential, for height, for eye and hair color, and for other characteristics…including a few that one should not, ethically speaking, attempt to reproduce (e.g., deafness).
The thorniest of all subjects within the envelope of heritability is intelligence. To what extent is intelligence heritable? The consensus among cognitive scientists is that there is a predisposition toward high intelligence among the children of the intelligent. The heritability factor is variously estimated to be between 20% and 60%. But few of them will say so “out loud,” as there are large, militant interest groups all too eager to destroy anyone who might suggest that breeding matters to intellect.
Yet here again, there are patterns to be observed that no man can gainsay. One of them is the difference in the distribution of IQ scores between Caucasian men and Caucasian women. The two distributions’ means are just about identical, but their standard deviations differ significantly. Why? No one knows. But the pattern has persisted for at least a century.
The number of scholars that dare to discuss such matters in public grows smaller every year. Those militant interest groups are frighteningly good at using strategically composed and placed slanders to destroy reputations and careers. Ask Arthur Jensen. Ask Philippe Rushton. Ask Charles Murray.
Only one thing do I know, and that is this: To condemn a fact because it crosscuts one’s political agenda doesn’t falsify the fact. It merely renders the condemners and those who go along with them vulnerable to their prejudices in ways that could cost them heavily at some unpredictable future time. Reality is cruel that way. It always has been to men who prefer their wishes to the observable, verifiable facts.
Wasn’t that fun? Maybe tomorrow we’ll talk about race.