Yogi Berra said, “It ain’t over till it’s over.” It’s a logic that would be refreshing these days. Here’s a variation that may help with some current controversies: if you want to end an argument, finish it. In other words, one way to end some arguments used for certain causes would be simply to follow the argument to its logical conclusion. If we did that, we would see how dubious some of these arguments are.
For example, let’s take gender and athletics. Some girls as girls want to play on the same teams as boys. (And it may be, though I’m not aware of actual cases, that some boys as boys want to play on the same teams as girls.) Then, some girls have “become” boys and want to play on the boys’ team, and some boys have “become” girls and want to play on the girls’ team. And then, some … persons want to identify either way and play on whichever team accords with their identity of the moment. The argument seems to be not only that acknowledged biological sex should make no difference but also that gender is something one can choose on one’s own—i.e., a “private” decision. Well, what are we to do? Who do we let play with whom?
Here’s a solution. Let’s take these arguments to their logical conclusions. That is, if gender makes no difference, either because males and females are in all respects “equal,” or because gender is a “private matter,” then the logical conclusion seems to be to abolish any consideration of gender in athletics and have one team per sport per school, period. If gender identity should be no more of a consideration than race or creed, then let’s treat it on our athletic teams as we treat race or creed, which is to say by taking no notice of it and putting everyone on the same team. Let’s have none of this “Ridgemont High boys basketball” and “Ridgemont High girls basketball,” just “Ridgemont High basketball”; this would also apply to football, and track, and swimming, and so forth. Not only should this end the controversy, but it would save lots of money.
Let’s not stop at high school. I’m sure some of these athletes will want to play in college. Universities, at the forefront of the gender causes, should have the same rule: No more college men’s teams or college women’s teams, just “teams.” I mean, either gender makes a difference or it doesn’t. (I wonder where the Gender Studies faculty would come down on this after 95 percent of the female athletes lose their scholarships?)
The Olympics, with its international social consciousness, should have no more “men’s” and “women’s” and “mixed” events, but just “events.” It would certainly shorten what has become one of the most tedious of all sports broadcasts. Professional sports, too, could play this game. Forget the NBA and the WNBA, or the PGA and LPGA; let’s just have basketball and golf (and tennis and track, and so on).
Why stop at athletics? What about the arts? The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences would need to choose—not best actor and best actress, or best supporting actor and best supporting actress, but simply best performance and best supporting performance. Grammys should go not to best male or female artist, but just best artist. How could the entertainment elite continue to justify such gender distinctions?
The armed forces, as the most visible representative of our nation, should also follow this practice. There should be one standard only for physical fitness for all persons, and any gender identifying criterion, including names, should be stricken from the records, especially when considering promotion.
We could take this into other areas—for example, abortion. If you’re a man told by a woman that you should have no say in the matter because you’re a man, then just say that you’ve decided to identify as a woman and keep on arguing. And, really, if—as we are told ad nauseam—having a child should be left totally to the woman, then please don’t ask the man for child support.
Getting back to the scholastic side: we are told that sex education is all about allowing young persons to discover what they are, and they do this by following their own inclinations. It could be done in five minutes at the beginning of each school year by having the principal address the student body with the announcement: “You do whatever you want, with whomever you want, however you want.” Period. There would be no need for more “sex education” for the rest of the year. After getting rid of all the sex ed teachers and all the rallies and celebrations pertaining to gender (it makes no difference, right?), we could use the time and money saved on academics.
Let’s not forget the new logic of marriage. It’s all about “love,” right? Well, can’t I—shouldn’t I—love everybody? Why is “love” restricted to a number? Are you an integerphobe? And, let’s face it, some people love their pets more than they love people. (And most pets are more lovable than most people.) Shouldn’t I be allowed to marry my dog? Let’s end zooaphobia. But don’t you love the Earth? I do; I want to marry my tree. Plants have feelings, too, you know. I will not vote for any speciesist candidate!
As for businesses, any promotion or celebration of gender specific holidays should be strictly forbidden and penalties imposed. Good-bye Mother’s Day and Father’s Day.
I see absolutely no reason why, given the premises of the arguments used at the beginning of the article, they cannot and should not be taken to their logical end. No doubt some people would be for it. (I, for one, wouldn’t mind seeing some of our culture’s misguided emphasis on sports curbed, and I could imagine some merit in artistic awards on the basis of performance alone.) It would be interesting to see how defenders of transgenderism would react to their own arguments if they were taken to their logical conclusions. It might finish them.