In the US, whenever a women’s national team places higher in its competition than the men’s team in the same sport does in its competition, the feminist line has always been “the women are better than the men.” This was a major talking point in the soccer equal pay fight. Around the same time you also started hearing things like “she has the most goals by any American player, man or woman.” The problems with these claims are obvious. If they played head to head, the men would thrash the women, so what does “better” really mean here? For the goals thing, the comparison is nonsensical because men’s soccer and women’s soccer are non-overlapping magisteria: it would be like saying the star high school softball player who can hit .500 against her teenage competition is better than any major league baseball player because the best of them only hit in the .300 range . . . but how would the softball player fare if she had to try and hit against the competition the major leaguers have to hit against? But the fact the claims were nonsensical does not stop feminists from making them when they are convenient.

But the claims have a downside, which is that ignorant people honestly believe women and men can be equals in sports, and that some women might actually be better than men in the same sports if both athletes are trained in them. (A similar concept is pushed in movies nowadays, with all the tiny women shown throwing men through walls and so forth.) So now the claims are biting them in the butt, because if women can be “better” than men, what are these stupid little girls so afraid of if we just throw trans-claiming boys in the arena with them? It’s basically just a coin flip whether the girl or boy will be better, right? What’s the difference? If this girl got blasted by a boy’s powerful spike and is suffering major health issues as a result, she should just be inspired by Megan Rapinoe and become “better than the men!” She should be like female action heroes and learn how to throw men through walls! It just so happens that the other player is the hardest spiker, “boy or girl!” It’s clearly possible for the injured girl to become better than any boy, she just isn’t good enough! All of these latter claims I’m making facetiously are consistent with the prior serious claims feminists made when they were convenient to their momentary goals, and naturally and logically follow from them. Guess they should have thought things through before making them!

In the US, whenever a women’s national team places higher in its competition than the men’s team in the same sport does in its competition, the feminist line has always been “the women are better than the men.” This was a major talking point in the soccer equal pay fight. Around the same time you also started hearing things like “she has the most goals by any American player, man or woman.” The problems with these claims are obvious. If they played head to head, the men would thrash the women, so what does “better” really mean here? For the goals thing, the comparison is nonsensical because men’s soccer and women’s soccer are non-overlapping magisteria: it would be like saying the star high school softball player who can hit .500 against her teenage competition is better than any major league baseball player because the best of them only hit in the .300 range . . . but how would the softball player fare if she had to try and hit against the competition the major leaguers have to hit against? But the fact the claims were nonsensical does not stop feminists from making them when they are convenient.

But the claims have a downside, which is that ignorant people honestly believe women and men can be equals in sports, and that some women might actually be better than men in the same sports if both athletes are trained in them. (A similar concept is pushed in movies nowadays, with all the tiny women shown throwing men through walls and so forth.) So now the claims are biting them in the butt, because if women can be “better” than men, what are these stupid little girls so afraid of if we just throw trans-claiming boys in the arena with them? It’s basically just a coin flip whether the girl or boy will be better, right? What’s the difference? If this girl got blasted by a boy’s powerful spike and is suffering major health issues as a result, she should just be inspired by Megan Rapinoe and become “better than the men!” She should be like female action heroes and learn how to throw men through walls! It just so happens that the other player is the hardest spider, “boy or girl!” It’s clearly possible for the injured girl to become better than any boy, she just isn’t good enough! All of these latter claims I’m making facetiously are consistent with the prior serious claims feminists made when they were convenient to their momentary goals, and naturally and logically follow from them. Guess they should have thought things through before making them!

In the US, whenever a women’s national team places higher in its competition than the men’s team in the same sport does in its competition, the feminist line has always been “the women are better than the men.” This was a major talking point in the soccer equal pay fight. Around the same time you also started hearing things like “she has the most goals by any American player, man or woman.” The problems with these claims are obvious. If they played head to head, the men would thrash the women. For the goals thing, the comparison is nonsensical because men’s soccer and women’s soccer are non-overlapping magisteria: it would be like saying the star high school softball player who can hit .500 against her teenage competition is better than any major league baseball player because the best of them only hit in the .300 range . . . but how would the softball player fare if she had to try and hit against the competition the major leaguers have to hit against? But the fact the claims were nonsensical does not stop feminists from making them when they are convenient.

But the claims have a downside, which is that ignorant people honestly believe women and men can be equals in sports, and that some women might actually be better than men in the same sports if both athletes are trained in them. (A similar concept is pushed in movies nowadays, with all the tiny women shown throwing men through walls and so forth.) So now the claims are biting them in the butt, because if women can be “better” than men, what are these stupid little girls so afraid of if we just throw trans-claiming boys in the arena with them? It’s basically just a coin flip whether the girl or boy will be better, right? What’s the difference? If this girl got blasted by a boy’s powerful spike and is suffering major health issues as a result, she should just be inspired by Megan Rapinoe and become “better than the men!” She should be like female action heroes and learn how to throw men through walls! It just so happens that the other player is the hardest spider, “boy or girl!” It’s clearly possible for the injured girl to become better than any boy, she just isn’t good enough! All of these latter claims I’m making facetiously are consistent with the prior serious claims feminists made when they were convenient to their momentary goals, and naturally and logically follow from them. Guess they should have thought things through before making them!

In the US, whenever a women’s national team places higher in its competition than the men’s team in the same sport does in its competition, the feminist line has always been “the women are better than the men.” This was a major talking point in the soccer equal pay fight. Around the same time you also started hearing things like “she has the most goals by any American player, man or woman.” The problems with these claims are obvious. If they played head to head, the men would thrash the women. For the goals thing, the comparison is nonsensical because men’s soccer and women’s soccer are non-overlapping magisteria: it would be like saying the star high school softball player who can hit .500 against her teenage competition is better than any major league baseball player because the best of them only hit in the .300 range . . . but how would the softball player fare if she had to try and hit against the competition the major leaguers have to hit against? But the fact the claims were nonsensical does not stop feminists from making them when they are convenient.

But the claims have a downside, which is that ignorant people honestly believe women and men can be equals in sports, and that some women might actually be better than men in the same sports if both athletes are trained in them. (A similar concept is pushed in movies nowadays, with all the tiny women shown throwing men through walls and so forth.) So now the claims are biting them in the butt, because if women can be “better” than men, what are these stupid little girls so afraid of if we just throw trans-claiming boys in the arena with them? It’s basically just a coin flip whether the girl or boy will be better, right? What’s the difference? If this girl got blasted by a boy’s powerful spike and is suffering major health issues as a result, she should just be inspired by Megan Rapinoe and become “better than the men!” She should be like female action heroes and learn how to throw men through walls! It’s clearly possible, she just isn’t good enough! All of these latter claims are consistent with the other claims feminists made when it was convenient, and naturally follow from them. Guess they should have thought things through before making them!