Hot Take: The Supreme Court Is A Tool Of Tyrants

Remember the days when liberals would tell us that things just aren’t black and white, that there are shades of grey? That there’s no need for absolutes? Well, then, along came George W. Bush, who drove them in Bush Derangement Syndrome. This infested the Credentialed Media. And the rise of blogs and digital media, so, rather than positioning themselves as Honest News, they went the Daily Kos, Crooks and Liars, Media Matters, and Think Progress route. Lots and lots of the bloggers moved into the Credentialed Media. And they went crazier with Obama in office, this time with their adulation. Then more insane with Trump in office. And anything that goes against their beliefs is The Worst Thing Ever

The Supreme Court Is a Tool of Tyrants

Most Americans do not want to ban abortion. About 60 percent believe the procedure should be legal in all or most cases, the Pew Research Center reported last year. Should the Supreme Court indeed overturn Roe v. Wade, as a leaked draft of the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization suggests, there is every reason to believe the decision will be unpopular. Yet public opinion matters little to the right wing and conservatives are organizing behind a national abortion ban, according to the Washington Post. “This is a whole new ballgame,” Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life Action, told the newspaper. “The 50 years of standing at the Supreme Court’s door waiting for something to happen is over.”

Public opinion means exactly zero when it comes to deciding whether something is Constitutional or not. That’s why it’s called a Constitutional Republic. BTW, some polls go the other way.

There will soon be no reason for them to linger outside the Court in hope. The right’s long war to ban abortion in the United States may be nearing its conclusion. The draft opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito, argues that “a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions.” Women should not fear, he asserts later, because they “are not without electoral or political power.” This is thin comfort. Pro-choice women can influence their fates through direct action: by breaking unjust laws, or by filling streets in the defense of their bodies. Electorally, however, their powers are limited by the influence of an anti-democratic conservative movement.

It won’t be illegal everywhere. It’s a state’s rights issue. Perhaps women will stop using abortion as contraception, and start realizing that having risky, irresponsible, unprotected sex is not a good idea. Men, too. But, men do not have to worry about a bun in their oven. And, if they do not like what the state passes, they can move to another state, or try and get people elected who will change the law.

What is happening inside the Supreme Court is not the triumph of the American people but rather the success of a well-funded minoritarian faction. The battle for abortion pits the electoral and political power of a pro-choice majority against that of conservative elites, and it is easy to see who is winning. (Conservatives have focused their attention and ire on the leaked opinion because they view it as a crime committed against them. The court is theirs; anyone who violates its sanctity is an enemy. The possibility that the leaker might be a conservative does not change this basic calculus.) Anti-abortion activists have discovered that with enough elite power at their disposal, they can comfortably ignore the wishes of the people. Their stance on abortion predisposes them to a tyrannical form of politics. If abortion kills a human being, then public opinion does not matter; in fact, to defer to the public is to become complicit in mass murder.

See? We don’t like the way the Supreme Court might rule based on the Constitution, so, it’s tyranny, and we’re going to come up with all sorts of Theories. These people are nuts, and prefer mob rule, with no guiding principles.

The piece goes on and on, but, I do have to throw this in

When the justices formally rule on Dobbs, and surely strike down Roe, they will continue a anti-democratic tradition that includes Bush v. Gore, which overruled the popular vote and put George W. Bush in office;…

They just cannot Move On. This still drives them nuts. Those who know this was the proper ruling based on the laws of Florida are fine with it. I voted for Gore in 2000, so, while I was disappointed, I understood The Law. For the moonbat BDS infused lefties, they do not care, they still lose their minds for not getting their way.

Anyhow, if a liberal within the office of the Supreme Court leaked it, they might have hurt Democrats more, because seeing them out in the streets, getting violent, protest, going full moonbat in favor of killing the unborn could swing many people over to vote Republican.

NY Times: Overturning Roe Isn’t Conservative Or Something

We’ve had plenty of unhinged Hot Takes over the leaked SCOTUS document on Roe v Wade. Then, we get the folks who are supposed to be allies. Here’s the NY Times’ resident Republican (who’s really a necon and inflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome)

Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice

Dear Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas:

As you’ll no doubt agree, Roe v. Wade was an ill-judged decision when it was handed down on Jan. 22, 1973.

It stood on the legal principle of a right to privacy found, at the time, mainly in the penumbras of the Constitution. It arrogated to the least democratic branch of government the power to settle a question that would have been better decided by Congress or state legislatures. It set off a culture war that polarized the country, radicalized its edges and made compromise more difficult. It helped turn confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court into the unholy death matches they are now. It diminished the standing of the court by turning it into an ever-more political branch of government.

So, it was a horrible, terrible, no good decision? Let’s get rid of it

But a half-century is a long time. America is a different place, with most of its population born after Roe was decided. And a decision to overturn Roe — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate Roe’s damage than to reverse it.

That means nothing. The Constitution is the Constitution. If you do not like the words, try and change it with a Constitutional convention

It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.

What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus.

Well, that’s the neocon view. The real view, based on the Classical Liberal/Federalist beliefs is that the Constitution is the Constitution, that the federal government’s powers should be limited to what the Constitution grants them, and everything else is held by the States and The People. Do we care if it can “cause damage”? We either do The Right Thing, the constitutional thing, or, we abandon our beliefs. Stephens continues with his idiotic pandering to the left by claiming keeping Roe would be Conservative for awhile, you’re welcome to read it.

And, then, of course we have Squishy Susan Collins

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said Tuesday that if a report suggesting that the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade is accurate, she was misled in her conversations with two justices who had told her that the landmark 1973 abortion ruling was settled law. (snip)

“If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office,” Collins said in a statement. “Obviously, we won’t know each justice’s decision and reasoning until the Supreme Court officially announces its opinion in this case.”

I highly doubt either said it was settled law, because it is not law. Obviously, the argument made in the case that has SCOTUS considering overturning Roe was better than the argument in favor of keeping Roe. Here’s David Harsanyi

Senator Susan Collins says that Samuel Alito’s draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade is “completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office.” Ramesh and Ed have debunked this claim. Conceding that long-established precedents should be treated with more weight does not preclude the possibility that those decisions were wrongly decided and should be overturned. Plessy was on the books for over 60 years. As Chuck Schumer noted at the time, “this is not as simple as Judge Kavanaugh saying that Roe is settled law. Everything the Supreme Court decides is settled law until it unsettles it. Saying a case is settled law is not the same thing as saying a case was correctly decided.”

With friends like Collins and Stephens, who needs enemies? And, of course

Yup, Trump broke them so much they can’t even stick with American Conservative principles and stand up for doing away with killing the unborn.

Conservative Kentuckians need to thank Mitch McConnell! He filled an inside straight when the safe bet would have been to fold.

Screen capture from The Washington Post. Click to enlarge.

If this draft opinion truly reflects the decision of the Court, we need to give thanks exactly where it is due: to Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who, as Majority Leader at the time, prevented a vote which would have elevated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. This allowed President Trump to instead appoint Neil Gorsuch, one of the (reported) 5-4 majority which overrules Roe v Wade 410 US 113 (1973).

When Senator McConnell took his decision, it was not at all clear that a Republican would win the 2016 election. The odious Hillary Clinton was the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, though Bernie Sanders was still making inroads, and Donald Trump was throwing the orderly Republican nomination process into chaos. Every poll, every poll, concluded that Mrs Clinton would solidly defeat Mr Trump if that was how the November contest would be held. If that turned out to be the case, the (purportedly) more moderate Judge Garland would be replaced as nominee by a really flaming hard leftist like, oh, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Even if Mrs Clinton would simply have renewed the appointment of Judge Garland, were he on the Supreme Court he would have voted to uphold Roe.

Senator McConnell placed a serious bet, against the odds, and he won; he filled an inside straight, when the safe bet would have been to fold.

I’m very proud to say that I voted for Mitch McConnell in November of 2020!

“It’s a stinking business, Mr Rutledge, a stinking business!” It seems that Planned Parenthood is having difficulties finding physicians who want to perform abortions

In the musical 1776, Roy Poole, the actor playing delegate Steven Hopkins of Rhode Island, shouts to John Callum, who played Edward Rutledge of South Carolina, on slavery, “It’s a stinking business, Mr Rutledge, a stinking business!” That’s how I see abortion, and I am appalled that anyone would willingly be a part of it.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 940 OB/GYNs employed in Georgia in May of 2010, the fifth highest in the nation. The ‘location quotient’ for OB/GYNs in the Peachtree State was 1.38; BLS defines the term as:

The location quotient is the ratio of the area concentration of occupational employment to the national average concentration. A location quotient greater than one indicates the occupation has a higher share of employment than average, and a location quotient less than one indicates the occupation is less prevalent in the area than average.

There are 21 OB/GYNs employed in Georgia per 100,000 population, which is the highest number in the South, and one of the highest in the nation, but somehow, Planned Parenthood can’t find anyone in the Peachtree State willing to perform preborn infanticides! Continue reading

Joe Manchin’s popularity soars in West Virginia Amanda Marcotte hurt worst!

My good friend Amanda Marcotte‘s second favorite whipping boy — Donald Trump was, is, and always will be her favorite person to hate! — Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) has been dropped by the writer as a frequent target of late. But I knew nevertheless that she’s wax apoplectic if she saw this story from The Hill:

Poll: Manchin’s popularity skyrocketed over past year


By Elizabeth Crisp | Monday, April 25, 2022 | 12:28 PM EDT

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is among the most popular senators in the country after seeing his favorability skyrocket back home over the past year, according to an analysis of survey data released Monday.

Morning Consult found that, even as Manchin has faced backlash from progressives nationally, about 57 percent of West Virginia voters viewed him favorably in surveys conducted from January through March. His popularity jumped 17 points — more than any other senator — compared to the same period last year. Continue reading

A Democrat says the quiet part out loud Former Representative Ben Chandler admitted that he tried to confuse voters about his own positions

Albert Benjamin Chandler III, a Democrat, and the grandson of former Governor, Senator and Commissioner of Baseball A B “Happy” Chandler, won a special election in 2004 for the Sixth District congressional seat, and was re-elected in 2006, 2008 and 2010. In 2012, he was defeated by Republican Andy Barr, who continues to hold the seat today.

An article on the Lexington Herald-Leader’s website references Mr Chandler and his electoral history.

‘All politics is national’: How Kentucky’s congressional districts have slid off the map

by David Catanese | Thursday, March 31, 2022 | 10:27 AM EDT

WASHINGTON Four years ago, Andy Barr had a real race on his hands.

An outside Republican group poured more than $3.5 million into Lexington’s 6th Congressional District to counter the nationally recruited Amy McGrath’s $8 million warchest.

Barr survived the rough and expensive environment, but only by 3 percentage points.

Now his former battleground seat in the heart of Kentucky’s commonwealth looks downright hospitable, if not sleepy.

The article continues to tell readers that every congressional district in Kentucky has a party favorability rating in double digits, five for Republicans, and one, in Louisville, for Democrats. Mr Barr’s district actually has the smallest partisan advantage, at 13%.

The Bluegrass State was the friendliest in the South for Democrats, with Democrats winning most gubernatorial races, and controlling the state House of Representatives up until the 2016 elections. But it was tough going for Mr Chandler in the Sixth District, and he told the reporter how he held on for as long as he did:

Lexington’s 6th Congressional District used to fall in the competitive category when Chandler held the seat for four terms. But Chandler, now the CEO of The Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky, says he had to practice the “politics of confusion” in order to survive in a place where most identified as conservative.

“I had to confuse my constituents so they couldn’t tell whether I was a liberal or a conservative or a moderate,” he said, noting that endeavor became more difficult as data showed him that an increasing amount of his constituents were primarily depending on conservative media outlets like Fox News, which blared narratives that tarred his entire party with the same broad brush. “When that’s the case and you’re a Democrat, you clearly are looking at a hell of an uphill battle.”

Translation: Mr Chandler had to lie to the voters to win the races he did.

Mr Chandler lost to Mr Barr in the 2012 elections, but Democrats in the Bluegrass State held on to a majority in the state House of Representatives until the 2016 contests. The Sixth District, which includes more liberal Lexington, is Kentucky’s second most Democratic district, and, as the cited article pointed out, Amy McGrath Henderson, who wasn’t an incumbent, ran a competitive race against Mr Barr in 2018. Is it possible, just possible, that Mr Chandler lost in 2012 at least in part because the voters in the district were not as confused about him as he thought he could make them? Given that Democrats controlled the state House of Representatives following both the 2000 and 2010 elections, it wasn’t as though Republicans could gerrymander the district against them.

Mrs Henderson tried to confuse the voters as well, spending a clear pile of money — $8,274,396 to Mr Barr’s $5,580,477 — on mailings and television ads telling us how moderate and patriotic she was. However, she attended a fund raiser in Massachusetts and said, “I am further left, I am more progressive, than anyone in the state of Kentucky.

There’s a simple truth here: while Mr Chandler and Mrs Henderson both tried to fool the voters of the Sixth District, Mr Barr has not, because the voters in the Sixth more closely match conservative Republican principles.

The freedom to tell the truth Swimmer had to wait until she exhausted her eligibility before she spoke out

When I saw the article referenced below, I guessed that University of Kentucky women’s swim team member Riley Gaines was a senior, and her UK biography page confirmed that.

    Swimmer who tied with Lia Thomas says female athletes ‘not OK’ with trajectory of women’s sports

    by Cameron Jenkins | Friday, April 1, 2022 | 10:28 AM EDT

    A University of Kentucky swimmer who tied in fifth place with Lia Thomas during the NCAA swimming championships’ 200-yard freestyle claimed that many female athletes are “not OK” with the trajectory of women’s sports.

The First Street Journal’s Stylebook specifies that we always refer to the ‘transgendered’ by their real names, the names given at birth, and not the made up ones they use. Further, we always apply the honorifics and pronouns appropriate to their biological sex. However, we do not change the direct quotes of others.

    “The majority of us female athletes, or females in general, really, are not OK with this, and they’re not OK with the trajectory of this and how this is going and how it could end up in a few years,” Riley Gaines told Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) during an interview on her podcast “Unmuted with Marsha.”

    Gaines’s comments refer to NCAA rules that allow transgender women to compete in women’s competitive sports, Fox News noted.

    Thomas last month became the first transgender athlete to win an NCAA Division 1 national championship in any sport when she finished first in the 500-yard freestyle race — a moment that many conservatives have criticized as unfair.

    Gaines described to Blackburn during the podcast the emotions she felt when she realized she had tied in the 200-yard freestyle with Thomas.

    “I touched the wall and saw there was a five by my name indicating that I got fifth … I also looked up, and I saw the number five by Lia’s name and so, in that moment, I realized we tied,” Gaines said. “It was kind of like a flood of emotions. I was extremely happy for the girls above me who conquered what was seemingly impossible by beating Lia.”

I have previously noted my belief that Will Thomas deliberately threw his last couple of races, after he had won the women’s 500-yard freestyle championship, but there’s no way I could prove that.

Miss Gaines noted that, in her tie for fifth in the 200-yard race, the organizers had only one fifth-place award, which she understood. The organizers decided, however, that they’d give the award to Mr Thomas, and send Miss Gaines’ her award in the mail. The organizers could have brought Miss Gaines and Mr Thomas out together, holding aloft the single fifth-place trophy together, but putting 6’3″ Will Thomas and 5’5″ Riley Gaines side-by-side would have resulted in a photograph which just further pointed out the differences between Mr Thomas and female athletes.

I might not have paid any attention to this one, but the University of Kentucky is my alma mater. Naturally, I did a site search of the Lexington Herald-Leader’s website for Riley Gaines, and that newspaper, which heavily covers UK athletics, had nothing on Miss Gaines’ comments[1]As of 5:18 PM EDT on Saturday, April 2, 2022.. I was not surprised.

The Kentucky Kernel, UK’s independent student newspaper, did cover the story.[2]Full disclosure: I wrote for the Kernel while in graduate school, 1980-1982.

Why did I guess that Miss Gaines was a senior? Because her UK career is over; she’s exhausted her eligibility, so she can’t get kicked off the team, can’t lose her athletic scholarship. While she’s a very good swimmer, and her first-place finish in the 200-yard freestyle helped UK to its first Southeastern Conference championship in 2021, she’s not a serious contender for a spot on the Olympic team. Hailing from Gallatin, Tennessee, her future career prospects in that conservative state are not likely to be seriously damaged by her saying, in public, what so many other female swimmers have said anonymously.

References

References
1 As of 5:18 PM EDT on Saturday, April 2, 2022.
2 Full disclosure: I wrote for the Kernel while in graduate school, 1980-1982.

Some truths just don’t fit Teh Narrative For some on the left, when the truth doesn't fit their political beliefs, they just deny the truth!

Even Bruce Jenner, the winner of the men’s Decathalon in the 1976 Olympics, but is now so f(ornicated) up in the head that he thinks he’s a woman agrees: Will Thomas, the ‘transgender’ swimmer for the University of Pennsylvania’s women’s swimming team who now calls himself ‘Lia,’ is not the real winner of the 500-yard NCAA women’s freestyle championship:

For the past several months, she has been a vocal opponent of Thomas competing against women.

“[Lia Thomas] is also not good for women’s sports,” Jenner told Fox News in January. “It’s unfortunate that this is happening. I don’t know why she’s doing it. She knows when she’s swimming she’s beating the competition by two laps. She was born as a biological boy. She was raised as a biological boy. Her cardiovascular system is bigger. Her respiratory system is bigger.

“Her hands are bigger. She can swim faster. That’s a known. All of this is woke world that we’re living in right now is not working. I feel sorry for the other athletes that are out there, especially at Penn or anyone she’s competing against, because in the woke world you have to say, ‘Oh my gosh, this is great.’ No it’s not.”

Mr Jenner is certainly right about one thing: it is the #woke[1]From Wikipedia: Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from … Continue reading who are driving this.

Lia Thomas’ NCAA championship performance gives women sports a crucial opportunity

Anyone who cares about the advancement of sports, and women’s sports in particular, should celebrate her win.

By Cheryl Cooky, Purdue University professor of American studies and women’s, gender and sexuality studies | March 21, 2022 | 3:31 PM EDT

Just Dr Cooky’s title, professor of American studies and women’s, gender and sexuality studies, ought to tell you that she’s a bit kookie! What professions are there for “women’s, gender and sexuality studies” majors other than university professors?

On Saturday, University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas placed last in the 100-yard freestyle swim during the NCAA championships, ending her career in collegiate swimming. A last-place showing at an NCAA swim meet, even a championship one, would not typically garner national headlines. Yet, Thomas has been at the center of controversy regarding her eligibility to compete in women’s events.

After Mr Thomas’ many victories in women’s swimming, who here believes that he didn’t deliberately throw the 100-yard freestyle race, having already won his trophy in the 500, just to try to tamp down criticism that he was proving he isn’t really a woman by dominating these races? He did, after all, win admission to the University of Pennsylvania, a private, Ivy League school which does not award scholarships based on athletic merit. He can’t be stupid; he knows the criticism which has followed his participation on the women’s swim team.

We have previously noted Mr Thomas times in the Zippy Invitational in Akron, Ohio. In the 500-yard freestyle final, Mr Thomas defeated his teammate, Anna Sofia Kalandaze, who finished second, 4:34.06 to 4:48.99, a 14.93 second margin; Miss Kalandaze defeated the seventh-place finisher by 7.42 seconds, just half of the time she was behind Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas time would have finished 15th in the men’s final, ahead of ten other male swimmers. The last place male swimmer in the 500 yard freestyle, Luke Scoboria of Bloomsburg University, finished at 4:42.78, 7.21 seconds ahead of Miss Kalandaze’s second-place time. His year of taking testosterone suppressants — he has not yet been castrated undergone ‘sexual reassignment surgery — have obviously not done what the NCAA believe it would.

Are we supposed to believe that more than a year of testosterone suppression ‘therapy’ left him reasonably competitive with men’s swimming times just four months ago, but three more months radically reduced his performance, or is it more reasonable to think that he deliberately shaded his times for political reasons?

This controversy came to an apex last week at the NCAA championships when she became the first openly trans athlete to win a Division I championship in any sport. For anyone who cares about the advancement of sports, and women’s sports in particular, her win should be celebrated.

Women’s sports are situated at a paradoxical intersection wherein sex segregation is upheld through claims of biological difference, yet equality is prefaced on being treated the same and given the same opportunities as men. If we are to change this, we need to ask some important questions. How does one advocate for equitable treatment while also adhering to the notion of biological difference? If separate is not equal in the case of schools, bathrooms, restaurants or other social institutions, can separate ever truly be equal in the case of sports? Would gender-based discrimination in sports be eradicated if sports were gender-integrated?

In this, Dr Cooky assumes that males and females are physically equal, even though they are physically different.[2]I wonder: if it is discrimination to differentiate between men and women in sports, would that mean that if two men males wanted to compete together in pairs figure skating or ice dancing, would that … Continue reading Sexual dimorphism is a real thing:

Sexual dimorphism is the systematic difference in form between individuals of different sex in the same species.

For example, in some species, including many mammals, the male is larger than the female. In others, such as some spiders, the female is larger than the male. Other sex-specific differences include color (most birds), song in birds, size or presence of parts of the body used in struggles for dominance, such as horns, antlers, and tusks; size of the eyes (e.g., in the case of bees); possession of stings (various kinds of bees), and different thresholds for certain behaviors (aggression, infant care, etc.).

Sexual dimorphism in humans is the subject of much controversy. Human male and female appearances are perceived as different, although Homo sapiens has a low level of sexual dimorphism compared with many other species. The similarity in the sizes of male and female human beings is a good example of how nature often does not make clear divisions. To give an accurate picture of male and female size differences one would need to show how many individuals there are in each size category. There is a considerable overlap.

For example, the body masses of both male and female humans are approximately normally distributed. In the United States, the mean mass of an adult male is 78.5 kg, while the adult female mean is 62.0 kg. However the standard deviation of male body mass is 12.6 kg, so 10% of adult males are actually lighter than the female average.

These differences have real, physical consequences, with human males being physically taller, stronger, faster and quicker than human females on average. That some women are taller than some men is certainly the case, but it is very much outside the norm. My sisters, for example, with the same father and same mother, are eight and ten inches shorter than me, and far lighter. Dr Cooky can hold the view that men and women are equal, if she chooses, as women do have certain advantages: they tend to live longer, and have lower rates of cardiac disease. Women and men can be equally intelligent, though they tend to choose different academic pursuits.

But athletics, despite the wide variety of sports, is a narrow pursuit, and in athletics, the physical differences are important. Certain sports, such as curling, so not depend on size and speed, but on perception and precision, and men and women can compete on an equal basis. My alma mater, the University of Kentucky, just won their second consecutive NCAA Rifle championship, and rifle teams are sexually integrated.

But sports which depend on physical strength, speed and endurance? No, women and men simply cannot compete on the same level. To Dr Cooky, this is an assault on the concept of equality, but if it is, then truth is an assault on equality.

Those who oppose the inclusion of trans women in women’s sports argue that trans women have an unfair competitive advantage and that as a result they will take away opportunities from cisgender athletes. According to the NCAA, these assumptions are not well founded. Moreover, there is a lack of scientific evidence that conclusively demonstrates a direct link between testosterone and athletic performance.

Why, then, do athletes who are using ‘performance-enhancing’ drugs use testosterone as one of those drugs?

Athletic performance is influenced by a number of factors, including hormones, but also other things like coaching and training, psychological makeup of an athlete, access to resources and equipment, among others. Attempts to ban or limit the participation of trans athletes are not based on science. Instead, they are rooted in societal and cultural definitions of what constitutes gender or what defines a woman. Such questions matter because sports are organized based on the belief of natural differences between men and women, and they are sex-segregated as a result. Yet, this ultimately leads to the discrimination of athletes like Thomas.

Here Dr Cooky concedes that the “psychological makeup of an athlete” makes a difference, and in Mr Thomas case, that “psychological makeup” has been dominant: he went from being ranked 562nd among male swimmers, to first among female swimmers. He is 6’3″ tall, physically massive, and completed puberty as a male.

In the end, Dr Cooky is worried that acknowledging the physical differences between men and women, and that those physical differences have a significant impact on athletics, somehow acknowledges male superiority, something she simply cannot tolerate politically. And thus she, like so many others on the left, are having to take utterly idiotic positions, positions which deny simple truths, because some truths just do not fit within their political paradigm.

References

References
1 From Wikipedia:

Woke (/ˈwk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from the African-American Vernacular English expression “stay woke“, whose grammatical aspect refers to a continuing awareness of these issues.
By the late 2010s, woke had been adopted as a more generic slang term broadly associated with left-wing politics and cultural issues (with the terms woke culture and woke politics also being used). It has been the subject of memes and ironic usage. Its widespread use since 2014 is a result of the Black Lives Matter movement.

I shall confess to sometimes “ironic usage” of the term. To put it bluntly, I think that the ‘woke’ are just boneheadedly stupid.

2 I wonder: if it is discrimination to differentiate between men and women in sports, would that mean that if two men males wanted to compete together in pairs figure skating or ice dancing, would that have to be allowed?