Turns out it was about women’s sports all along—if getting rid of women's sports counts, that is.

Its author, Heritage Foundation senior research fellow and Boise State University political science professor Scott Yenor, chooses to introduce the topic in a familiar way: transphobia. Here, he opens with a nod to the right-wing conspiracy theories surrounding Imane Khelif, writing that “in 2024, a Tunisian man defeated a Chinese woman for the Olympic women’s boxing gold medal.” Already, he gets the facts wrong: Imane Khelif is Algerian, and she isn’t transgender, but regardless, he presses on and uses Khelif to call for laws that “define and uphold the physical differences between men and women.”

However, Yenor is merely using the topic of trans athletes—one that right-wing groups have manufactured as a way to get many Americans comfortable with discriminatory policies—as a springboard for his true target: women’s sports, and more specifically, “the deeper feminist settlement that has governed athletics for decades.” This feminism, he writes, aimed to make women “more independent and even dominant and less deferential and less oriented toward motherhood and traditional female graces,”

I usually post in c/boycottus but this is too angering.

It’s worth mentioning that women’s pro sports are seeing a surge in Canada right now (eg., Winnipeg expansion team, led by Desiree Scott, set to become NSL’s 7th franchise), so show your support!

  • bigbangdangler@reddthat.comEnglish
    22·
    2 days ago

    This is why I have never understood how conservative women exist, specifically in MAGA.

    It takes a special kind of stupid to know they want to bring the world back to 1800’s social rules but to believe that somehow you specifically, despite being a woman, will keep your right to vote, and your career, and your voice, etc. etc.

    “Women” are just a little further down the list from “immigrants” for these ghouls. And they’ve literally already shown you the list.

    • SeleniEnglish
      11·
      2 days ago

      Because they are allowed to punch down on children and brown people. Often, as long as a person has someone to punch down on, they can tell themselves they have it good. For some reason.

      But also they’re taught from birth that Order and Structure is Very Important; everyone has their specific place and level in society that they need to stay in, or all society will collapse into anarchy and no matter how bad they have it now, things will be infinitely worse.

      So they support that structure with absolute fervor, telling themselves that they’re Saving Society, themselves, and even all those other ungrateful women from the horrors of socioeconomic collapse.

      • LemmayngEnglish
        5·
        2 days ago

        Obligatory Large Big Junknuts quote:

        “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

        • SeleniEnglish
          3·
          2 days ago

          That’s basically one of the two tenants of conservatism, really; that the Natural Order of society is a pyramid, and everyone needs to ‘stay in their place’ to keep the pyramid stable, or society will collapse.

          The second tenant of course is Wilholt’s Law.

          What those two combine into is an almost religious obsession with a tiered in-group out-group layering system, with each level lower down the pyramid Out of the higher groups but In the same-tier or lower ones.

          Until you get to the bottom, which are the ones everyone gets to grind under their heels because they’re in the Lowest Tier and thus the Wicked Useless Dregs of Society only good for slave labor and kissing the feet of their ‘betters’.

          In fact I’m about three-quarters convinced it is their actual religion, as I’ve noticed that if their so-called ‘religious teachings’ or ‘beliefs’ countermand either the Order Pyramid or their/other people’s place in it, they will abandon or twist the teachings of their religion rather than abandon the pyramid.

    • FreshParsnip@lemmy.caEnglish
      5·
      2 days ago

      I can’t figure out how anyone who isn’t a straight white cis man could ever be a republican

  • FishnoodleEnglish
    62·
    2 days ago

    Out of shape women aren’t that great at giving birth, to be honest.

    It’s very physically demanding

    • streetfestival@lemmy.ca
      OPEnglish
      3·
      2 days ago

      What outcome are you looking at? Length of second stage labour? I haven’t seen a study that shows that. And if there is, the effect size won’t be huge.

      The plain language summary is that exercise and fitness (be sure to check with your healthcare provider before making significant changes in exercise while pregnant) increase the likelihood of healthy pregnancies and babies for all pregnant people. That said, the vast majority ‘out of shape’ (ie, sedentary, low lean muscle mass, low V02 max?) pregnant people in Canada have healthy pregnancies and babies. I’d rather Mum be out of shape than have poorly controlled diabetes or high blood pressure, lack access to prenatal care, miss prenatal vitamins, etc. It’s not that high on the list to be honest and let’s not shame