Sports in Transition: Transgendered Athletics and Fairness in Competition

I'm not a huge sports fan to be honest, but what I like, I like a lot. I'm talking about weight and powering lifting, the Highland Games, professional football, the World Strongman competition, the Spartan Games, professional boxing, MMA, the CrossFit Games, kickboxing, American Ninja Warrior, and, well, you get the picture. I played sports when I was younger and still enjoy lifting weights when I have the time. I think sports, or for that matter, physical activity of any sorts is good not just for the body but for the mind and spirit as well. Of course, when it comes to school, sports should never be allowed to trump academics in my opinion.

I also want to address the changes in gender identification and how it's affecting sports. First of all, despite the rantings of the Far Left, there are not 58 different sexes, be it pansexual, transsexual, omnisexual, or whatever else (some actually list as many as 63 different gender choices). There are only two genders. You're either a male or a female. You either carry the Y-DNA or you carry the mtDNA. Everything else is between your ears not your legs. You're free to pretend to be whoever or whatever you want. You are free to have a hormone therapy and "transition" from one gender to another. You can go the whole route and have a complete sex change if that's what you want.

However, you will not change the fact that your basic body chemistry doesn't change, at least not without drugs. You will still produce naturally either testosterone or estrogen; drugs can help suppress one and promote the other. You will not alter your bone structure (ie: wide hips vs wide shoulders) all that much or the fact that males are typically taller than females. You also will not change the your muscle fiber or the fact that males have naturally stronger upper body strength while females tend to be a little faster. Nevertheless, no matter what you do, you will still either be a Y-DNA or a mtDNA carrier and that will never change. So, what's this have to do with sports?

Simply this. We are seeing more transgendered males competing against females in sports. As a result, these former male athletes are starting to dominate their natural female opponents. Even in areas where females should do well, such as track and field, their ex-male competitors are edging out their female counterparts because they are taller and have longer strides. In sports like wrestling, MMA, and boxing, they are pummeling their female counterparts thanks to their natural upper body strength. Thus, I have to wonder if allowing "transitioned" athletes to compete against natural females is a fair contest? Can a natural female athlete compete on the same level as someone who used to be male? It's one thing to change physical appearance, but can it change inherit difference in size or muscle strength?

If women could compete with men on the same athletic footing, such as weightlifting or powerlifting, then why is it necessary that there has to be two separate divisions with completely different weight requirements based on gender? Why is there a women's field hockey team and why can't males play on it? The fact is that there are basic differences between the two genders. Could a transgendered female athlete ever expect to compete in the NFL as a defensive linebacker or offensive lineman on the same level as her male teammates? I don't know, but I don't think so. Perhaps in junior high school or maybe high school, but that's about it. Under most circumstances, these differences complement each other, which is how it should be in my opinion. However, when in direct competition with each other, there are going to be unfair advantages to one or the other.

At this point, I think female athletes should seriously consider boycotting matches or events when faced with a former male opponent, and male athletes should do likewise when matched with "transitioned" females (the same goes with those who simply "self-identify" as the opposite sex). If this would happen, sports associations and event sponsors would face a decline in competitors as well as a decline in attendance, which translates to a decline in revenue. The time have come where athletes should not just be tested for steroids and other illegal substances, but also for drugs which affect their natural sex hormones. Perhaps too the time has come for creating a third gender category for transgendered athletes or reevaluating those sports where differences in gender would not create potential unfair outcomes or cause physical harm to a contestant.

I know there are those who believe that there are no real differences in the sexes, regardless of how many genders beyond the original two they think there are, but both biology and anthropology would disagree as would real world competition. The Human species, like all other animals, developed specialties based on their unique qualities. We have advanced scientifically to the point where we can tinker with our own biology. However, there are some things which we cannot and perhaps may never change. Until that day comes, we should appreciate and celebrate the differences between the genders, and that includes the unique strengths and weaknesses of both.

Sports is about achieving your personal best while sports competition is testing your best against an opponent, be that an individual, another team, or an object. Allowing transgendered individuals to compete against a someone who is a biological male or female creates a unnatural advantage for one while handicapping the other. I've watched top females athletes go up against unranked transgendered males in sports like MMA, boxing, Greco-Roman (Olympic) wrestling and get the bejeezus beaten out of them. It wasn't even close to a fair match. Even in sports like weightlifting or track, biology can create a insurmountable advantage. While we're at it, women's sport should received the same about of attention as the males, including funding for school related sports and coaching staff.

Some might argue that genetics creates an unfair advantage, so what's the difference? The difference is that everyone must deal with their own genetics as dealt to them naturally whereas biology applies those differences differently based on their natural gender. Men and women will always have unique strengths and weaknesses, especially when it comes to sports. We should accept and value those differences rather than impose one on the other. I take no issue with transgendered individuals wanting to compete, but let's make it a fair match up and have them compete against other transgendered individuals or perhaps give a size and weight advantage to the natural gendered opponent.


Professor of Physiology says transgendered athlete has advantage in speed, power

Gender identity and sport: is the playing field level?

Martina Navratilova on trans-athletes: 'Letting men compete as women is unfair'

Here's a List of 58 Gender Options for Facebook Users

Education: America vs. the World---Where Do We Stand? Pt 3 of 3 of Our "Where America Ranks" Series

The Greek inventor Archimedes once said that given a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, he could move the world. If knowledge is the fulcrum, then education is the lever which can move the world. Education can open doors as well as minds. It is not only the measure of success of the individual, it's the measure of success for a nation. Unless its properly nurtured, a nation will stagnate and eventually decay economically, politically, and societal. So, where does America stand in terms of quality of education when compared to the world? How does our students compare to other developed nations in the areas of math, science, and reading?

As we've examined in our previous two articles of this series, much of what we're told about America doesn't gel with the published facts. We have one the worst healthcare systems of any developed nation; in some areas such as prenatal care, number of beds, and availability of healthcare professionals we actually rank in the second tier along with second world economies and crippling income inequality which puts us near the bottom tier among developed nations. In terms of freedom, we again rank only in the second tier in several areas, and even overall, we're nowhere near the top. So much for being the "leader of the free world". Now, according to a 2018 report by Business Insider, the US ranks 27th overall in education; down from sixth place in 1990 (their report also ranks the US in 27th place in terms of healthcare).

The 2018 "World Top 20 Project" which focuses solely on education and its affect on each nation's economy, the top ten nations are South Korea, Finland, Norway, Russia, Hong Kong, Japan, Estonia, Latvia, Israel, and Sweden. The United States came in 24th out of the 201 nations examined. While that places the US in the top 25%, we still fell behind nations like Kazakhstan (15th), the former Soviet Republic of Georgia (17th), China (20th), Croatia (22nd), and Saudi Arabia (23rd). Why is that?

One explanation cited in the reports is the decline in spending by 3% while student growth increased by 1% between 2010 and 2014. Meanwhile, Turkey increased its spending on education by 76% along with similar growth in spending in China and Brazil. According to the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) which measures 15 years students in developed and developing nations, the US ranks 38th out of 71 countries in math, and 24th in science and reading; all of which placing the US well in the second tier. Interesting, the top nations were Singapore (which topped all three categories), along with Japan, Estonia, Taiwan and Finland in Science; Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan and Japan in Math; and Hong Kong, Canada, Finland, and Ireland in reading. What makes this so interesting is that these countries were all ranked higher than the US in terms of overall freedom and/or healthcare. As an aside, the top ranked US schools according to US News and World Report's 2018 edition, which are in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Utah, New Hampshire, and Iowa still fall far behind all the top Asian and several of the European schools (Kentucky, by the way, was ranked 34th while Indiana was 35th).

In terms of higher education, Masters and More, which publishes a ranking of the best countries to pursue a post-bachelor's degree based a Pearson, a multinational education and publishing company, the top nations are South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore with Finland coming in fifth. Rounding out the rest of the top ten are the UK, Canada, the Netherlands, Ireland, and Poland. The US came in 14th out of the 40 countries represented and just behind Russia and ahead of Australia. The report looked at the primary and secondary school systems (which lays the foundation for higher education) as well as the colleges and universities. According to Pearson's CEO, Jon Fallon, the rankings "strongly reflect the economic growth of the countries", meaning that there is an obviously correlation between the quality of education and the economic success of each nation. But just how true is that?

The US spends more per student than any other country according to a Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report. The report says that the average amount spent per student from primary through high school is $10,759. However, the US spends $16,268 per student. As pointed out earlier, the US is, however, on the decline in spending per child by an average of 4% between 2010 and 2014. Meanwhile, the other OECD nations have increased their spending an average of 5%. Of course, that still means the US is currently spending more per child yet getting worse results than those who spend less.

The report suggests that one reason it that teachers in the US are seen as individuals who were unable to doing anything else whereas in other countries teachers are viewed as "professionals" on par with doctors, engineers, or lawyers. Accordingly, not only are they more respected in society, they are also better paid. American school teachers make on 65% of what their peers in other countries earn. The highest paid teachers are in South Korea, followed by Canada, Finland and Germany. In fact, US school teachers actually fall below the OECD average.

Another explanation is that the requirement to getting into a teaching program in other countries is much tougher than the US. Prospective teachers are expected to have higher GPA out of high school and do better on their college entrance examinations that their American counterparts. In Finland, it's easier to get into law or medical school than a teaching program. In addition, foreign students in teaching programs are required to take much more academically rigorous courses. They are also required to take continuing education courses, like their American peers, however, the courses are considered much tougher and more on par with other professionals.

Also discipline is far more strict in international school systems than they are in the US. Unlike the US, there is a zero tolerance for any bad behavior, back talk, profanity, sloppy dress (uniforms are the norm), and needless to say, violence against teachers or other students---even bullying---is a non-starter. These school systems expect---insist---that parents instill respect and discipline in their children and that carries over to the schools where physical punishment, though rare, can be enforced. Parents are also expected participate in any school functions. Failure to do so will usually warrant the attention of school administrators. I strongly suspect that excuses aren't tolerated.

Some have argued that bad behavior results from low income or "disadvantaged" children, especially among minorities, yet according to OCED, there are 37 other countries with are economically poorer and have fewer resources than the US yet they consistently outperform the US academically. One possible reason it that schools in Europe, and especially Asia, set and demand higher academic standards that American schools, and that translates into discipline in school. In fact, it's their official academic policy and practices. Children in Singapore for instance, are given a thorough assessment prior to first grade in order to determine if they meet the minimum grade criteria. If they fall below the bar, they must first be brought up to speed before being allowed to start.

Students are also regularly tested in ensure they meet minimum grade criteria before being passed to the next grade unlike many American school systems which "fail forward" students out of fear that parents will complain or allege "discrimination". American schools seem to have adopted the Washington solution to dealing with problems which amounts to kicking the can down the road and letting someone else deal with it. The end result is students graduating with a high school diploma but having only a functional eighth or ninth grade education or less in terms of reading.

In Germany, which is noted for its academic excellence, students are tracked academically as well as to their interests. In Germany, students may be tracked for higher education or for one in the trades, which is another key difference. In the US, it's assumed that all individuals are destined for college regardless of whether they are so inclined. As a result, you see students racking up crippling debt and ending up with useless degrees. It also artificially raises the bar for getting a job.

The majority of employment opportunities should require no more than a high school degree or perhaps even a six month or two year technical certificate. Meanwhile, critically needed trade jobs, which require less education and are far cheaper, go unfilled. In addition, these jobs typically pay much better than the average four or six year degree and have better benefits. In Germany (and the rest of the world), there is no stigma between someone in the trades and some with professional degree, which can't be necessarily said of the US.

So, in terms of education the US is no better off than when we looked at its ranking on freedom or healthcare. At best, the US education system is well out of the top ten list and typically falls towards the middle of the second tier. The main reasons do not include the amount of money spent on each child (we top the list), but on attracting less the best into the teaching profession. This is due to both the perception that a career in education is somehow inferior, therefore the criteria is lowered, and that teachers are poorly paid when compared to their peers elsewhere.

The second reason is that expectations for students are set lower for US students than elsewhere, and that includes discipline. Respect should be a given, not something we bargain for in order to avoid violence in the classroom. We've allowed ourselves to become so focused on meaningless labels as part of a group rather than on our potential as individuals. Students should be individually tracked and constantly monitored as to their performance. Parents must be made a part of the solution rather they expecting teachers to serve as their glorified, if underpaid, babysitters. Lastly, students should be expected to perform and not "flunked through" or "failed forward". They either meet minimum expectations and move on or their they don't. If they don't, they must be held accountable and meet the criteria before moving on. A high school diploma must be made to mean something again. Also, I believe way too much emphasis is placed on sports, especially at the Jr High School and High School levels rather than on academics. Only a tiny percentage make it into professional or even semi-professional sports but everyone needs critical thinking skills and know how speak and write properly along with how to read and
do math.

The third key reason is attempting to herd students through a system where they may or may not fit. Not everyone is college material and not every job needs someone with a college degree. If a high school diploma is restored to its former value, most graduates can handle the majority of jobs out there. Technical and trade schools are an excellent option for many students. They pay well, have great benefits and they're in high demand. They also can be earned quicker and at a fraction of the cost of a four year degree. Students who do chose to attend college should be strongly encouraged to obtain degrees which have some market value (ie: requiring a Art History or Minority studies degree to also have a mandatory dual major in business, accounting, or computer science). Coming out with a worthless degree and tens of thousands of dollars in debt makes no sense at all and creates additional financial problems down the road.

A nation's overall success depends on the quality of its citizens. A uneducated populace is a little better than herd of sheep waiting to be led to slaughter. It's one of the key reasons---if not the key reason---democracies and republics fall. For the tyrant, an educated populace is dangerous. They know the limits of government. They understand and will defend their rights. An educate citizenry also provides the best opportunities for a strong economy, and that means job growth and economic stability. It also means a better quality of life for everyone, and who doesn't want that? As our readers know, America is an Oligarchy now, run by a professional political class of plutocrats who think they know better than us. One can almost track their rise alongside our decline in education, and with it, our standing as a nation of free people. The only question we need to answer is this---what are we prepared to do about it? Lastly, I would like to thank you for reading and your comments. I hope you've enjoyed this three part series about how America ranks with the rest of the world in the areas of freedom, healthcare, income inequality, and education, which are at the core of every nation's success or eventual downfall.



The US was once the leader in healthcare and education--now ranks 27th in the world

US students' academic achievement still lags that of their peers in many other countries

World Top 20 Project: International Education Database

40 Top Education Systems in the World

The US spends more on education than other countries. Why is it falling behind?

US News and World Report: Education Rankings

The State of America's Education System: How Low Can You Go?

I've always been a strong proponent of education. Education, as far as I'm concerned, is the linchpin to society. An educated populace is a productive populace; capable of doing a vast variety of work. This attracts businesses which generates taxes (both direct and indirect), as well as attracts other peripheral businesses, and so it continues. The result is often a community which offer a wide range of amenities, such as parks, museums, restaurants, as well as a strong social and structural infrastructure, from up-to-date sewer systems, electrical grids, clean water to adequate and well trained police, EMS, and firefighters. It should also include not just well paid teachers, but teachers who are as well respected and appreciated as some sports coach.

Without a strong educational foundation, nothing in society works (or at least very well). If you have a well educated population, you should have a society of individuals capable of critical thinking skills, an understanding of history, geography, political science and Civics; who have a general appreciation of world literature as well as the ability to perform basic mathematical computations, the sciences, and diagram sentences in order to write and speak properly. 

I would add that a well rounded graduate of high school should have completed an art or art appreciation, music class, or theater class. Kids that take what they want, without being intellectually challenged leave school underserved by not just the teachers, but the entire school system as well. Many are simply "flunked through" because of pressure by parents and the school system not to hold students back out of concern that it will "damage their self-esteem", not to mention how it makes the school system look to voters.

As a result, both the student and society often end up paying the price. The student-now-adult often finds that their nonchalant attitude in school now makes them virtually unemployable. Many take low paying and unrewarding jobs. Some end up in criminal gangs, which eventually leads to prison and/or the cemetery. 

 For the girls, they often end up pregnant and more often than not, on their own since their boyfriends end up being more immature and irresponsible "boys" than men. Either way, an significant portion end up on public assistance (tax supported charity in truth). The same goes with those who just want to concentrate on sports. Fewer than 1 in a 1000 every actually make it into professional sports and make the obscenely big money. That's some pretty poor odds.

Those who do succeed need more than athletic ability. They need the intellectual ability to think critically, to hold a reasonably intelligent (and intelligible) conversation. Most of all, they need to be able to properly interact with others; non-jocks like lawyers, financial advisors, team agents, owners, managers, the media, and other players. Far too often we see student-jocks coming out of high school (or even college) who aren't smart enough to do basic manual labor.

One of America's big failures in terms of education, has been "dumbing down" the academic expectations of students (this is a big problem in some communities where academic success is seen as a "betrayal" of one's race or cultural identity). 

The idea has been that create some misplace notion of "parity", as if all students are somehow intellectually equal, or that one group may fail disproportionately to another group. As a result, everyone gets punished. 

 Instead, students should be allowed to advance based on their own ability. Meanwhile, slower students should be allowed to progress at their own pace. Perhaps more advanced students could serve as teaching aides and help individual students in exchange for extra credit.

Another big problem in many school systems are those who cause discipline problems. Typically these are academic failing students, many of whom are insecure emotionally, who are determined to cover up their shortcomings by trying to keep other students from learning. I guess that somehow makes them feel better about themselves. 

In recent years, we've seen an increase in students attacking teachers. Hand-in-glove with this, we've seen an attempt by public schools to engage in a form of appeasement by allowing students to take what classes they want, lowering standards and grading requirements, providing "cooling off" rooms, etc.

Meanwhile, teachers aren't suppose to strike back or defend themselves. At best, the student might be suspended for a brief period. In a few cases, the student might be arrested, but there is usually a lot of pressure brought to bear not to press charges out of concern that it may have a negative impact on the student. 

We certainly don't want to see them forced to take responsibility for their bad behavior now would we? As for suspended students, they end up getting what they want---out of school and free to go do whatever they want, which eventually turns out bad for them and occasionally for society too. Students with a repeating pattern of this type of behavior need to be dealt with in specific manner.

Instead of suspending these students, they need to be placed in special schools designed to modify their behavior. Here the rules have to be different. Emphasis has to be on engaging the student directly, and if necessary, responding to violent outbreaks with appropriate responses.

 Bullies (and these often tend to be bullies who haven't been taken down a pig or two previously), need to be confronted. In addition, these individuals need to be assigned to these type of schools for a minimum of a month---24/7. Their personal behavior and academic performance dictates the length of their stay. 

Parents and selected friends can visit, but they can't leave. It can be a tough punishment, but their behavior brought it on themselves and it's better that they learn to take responsibility for their action now than down the road and end up in prison or dead (as an aside, America leads the world by far in terms of percentage of imprisoned population).

Speaking of school, I also want to stress that while there is a strong emphasis on going to college, college is not only not for everyone, it's really not necessary for most jobs (especially if high school had properly prepared the individual for life after school). Not every manager or supervisor needs a four or six year degree. Trade and vocational schools are often a much better option than college. 

First off, they prepare individuals for entry into the workplace much faster than college. They are also far cheaper so you don't rack up the massive school debt, and you often can start working in the field of your choice while still in school. They pay is generally excellent, as are the benefits. For experienced individuals, it's usually a short step to go into business for yourself.

For those who do decided to go to college, it's important to think realistically about what you want to major in. It's nice (or idealistic) to think about getting a degree in gender or racial culture studies, or in some other obscure topic, but will it give you a job when you graduate? Will taking a course in "Star Wars vs Star Trek" actually help you land a job? Is the degree you end up with enough to pay off a $100,000+ school debt? You have to think in practical terms.

College is about learning to think more critically. It's about learning to appreciate different opinions without not necessarily having to agree with or feel threatened by those opinions. It's about being able to express your ideas in a well thought out and reasoned manner. It's about using reason and logic to analysis an argument or situation. 

College is not about shouting down those you disagree with. It's not about forcing them off the stage or destroying property when you don't get your way. It's not about having a "safe space", nor is it about getting coddled or trying to make everyone happy. It about making an informed and well reasoned argument in a respectful manner using critical thinking skills. If you can't do that, then you need to consider what you need to do grow up emotionally. Perhaps you should consider a stint in the military. I guarantee you'll grow up there in a hurry.

So, with that said, how does America stack up academically compared with the rest of the world? According to the site "Ranking America", their latest study from 2015 ranks American public schools 14th overall academically in the world. South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Finland, in that order, make up the top five. 

The best performing school systems in America, Vermont and Massachusetts, can't compete with students in countries like Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, or Singapore in subjects like math and science.

Speaking of science, the school systems in Alabama and Mississippi are closer in academic performance to countries like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, while the school system in the District of Columbia is the academic equivalent of Bahrain. Overall, America's academic performance among its public school resemble those of third world countries. 

Countries like China, India, Pakistan, and Japan far out produce the US in graduates with medicine, engineering, robotics, and computer science degrees, especially at the masters and PhD levels. Ironically, the US spends more on education than most countries--6% of its gross domestic product---which is on par with countries like Ghana, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco. Interestingly, it's also far more than countries like Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, who outperform us, spend.

Finally, in terms of teacher pay, apparently US teachers are about average in terms of pay with an average of $43,600 per year for a primary school years with 15 years of experience compared to an average of around $39,000 for other teachers in economically developed nations with the same experience. 

Thus, American school teachers are paid roughly equivalent to teachers in the UK, Australia, and Holland. As an aside, the highest paid teachers are those in countries like Luxembourg, South Korea, Switzerland, and Germany.

However, American school teachers spend a lot more time teaching compared to other teachers around the world. US teachers spend, on average, 1089 hours teaching compared to 794 hours in primary education, 709 hours in lower secondary education, and 653 hours in upper secondary education. 

Thus, it appears that while US teachers spend more time actually teaching, they aren't equally compensated for the time they spend in the classroom. Of course, I should point that it's not uncommon for teachers to pay for school supplies out of their own pockets to make up for shortfalls in schools budgets (which often ends up in the salaries of administrators, who tend to be to numerous for most school systems).

So, there you have it. This is the state of American schools, where bright students often find themselves held back in underperforming schools; where even average students find the academic process disruptive and their academic opportunities short changed. In college, students aren't properly taught critical thinking skills and instead of being taught the true meaning of liberal arts, they become narrow minded and provincial. 

 Our teachers aren't paid bad, but neither are they paid for the work they actually do. We are continuing with our downward trend academically compared to the rest of the world, which may soon render us just another second tier nation with large swath with more in common with third world nations than not; a faded world power like so many who came before us. Meanwhile, America's military budget, at the direction of the ruling Oligarchy, continues to expand at the expense of our infrastructure, and ultimately, our children. The only real question is what are we going to do about it?

 If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!  

Estimated probability of competing in professional athletics


A Long Shot: More than three-quarters of men's Division I basketball players think they will play professionally, but less than 2 percent make it to the NBA


Here's How American Stack Up Against Students In Other Countries


America's Top States For Business 2017