Common sense has finally returned so why don't we call trans male athletes what they really are… cheats

The Sun

01-05-2025

THE referee's blown his whistle and red cards have finally been issued.
It's official: Trans women are to be kicked out of women's football.
4
It took more than a decade, thousands of determined campaigners and even a ruling by the highest court in the land.
But at long last, women footballer s are going to face a level playing field by not being forced to play against MEN.
Yesterday, England's Football Association performed a screeching U-turn on its existing policy and announced a total ban on transgender women playing in women's football from June 1.
The cricket and netball authorities quickly followed suit, having no doubt received precisely the same legal advice as the FA (and the Scottish FA).
It follows last month's Supreme Court ruling that the term 'woman' in the Equality Act refers only to a biological woman so, women's sport is only for women, and not for trans-identifying men as well.
The usual suspects were, of course, up in arms. Trans-identified man and online activist India Willoughby took some rare time off from insulting women on social media to falsely claim that trans people are now 'banned from football' and that trans people are being 'stigmatised and demonised' in what he called a 'full-blown trans apartheid'.
This FA 'ban' is in fact nothing of the sort.
Trans people are NOT banned from playing football or, indeed, any other sport.
They will simply have to compete in the correct sex category — the one that matches the body they were born with, not the body they wished they had. Just like everybody else.
There's also nothing to stop trans people from competing in mixed-sex or open categories.
Lia Thomas booed at podium of the NCAA Swimming Championships
Again, just like everybody else. And they are also free to set up their own trans category, if they so wish.
Finally, we are seeing a return to common sense, biological reality and, yes, fair play.
But why did it take so long? The Olympics first approved trans-identified men competing in women's sports events way back in 2003, and UK sports bodies opened most women's competitions to trans athletes in 2013.
Yet the reason for having men's and women's categories for sports competitions — from the Olympics or the Premier League down to Sunday-morning park runs — has never gone away.
Men are taller, bigger and stronger than women. Their muscles are larger, they have stronger bone density, lung capacity is greater and, most crucially of all, they have far higher levels of testosterone.
It doesn't matter what the sport is, men will always have a distinct and measurable physical advantage over women, and no hormone treatment, surgery or possession of Gender Recognition Certificates will ever change that.
Unfair advantage
Not that most men choosing to compete in women's sport have bothered to get surgery or a GRC.
On the contrary, female footballers have been forced to risk serious injury by facing fully intact, 6ft tall, testosterone-fuelled males on the pitch.
To add insult to the chance of injury, women athletes have been required to share their changing rooms and showers.
Not only did young American women have to race against Lia Thomas — a US college swimmer who had a mediocre sports career as William Thomas before identifying as a trans woman to win title after title in female races — they were also forced to endure a naked 6ft 1in Thomas (and his uncovered genitals) in their changing room every day, too.
This has long been a laughable state of affairs, but it has never been funny.
In fact, it is deadly serious, with women athletes wanting to speak out facing accusations of 'transphobia' and threats to force them out of their own sport.
Yet women's sport does not exist for the egos of men who are simply not good enough to make the grade among their male competitors. It's called 'women's sport' not 'second-rate men's sport'.
It was ironic that just at the point when women's football was finally starting to get the recognition and funding it deserved, trans-identifying men decided to (quite literally) muscle their way into the sport.
Why don't we just call these trans male athletes what they really are: CHEATS.
Allowing men to compete in women's sport is no different from endorsing testosterone-doped East German athletes at the Olympics. It's an unfair advantage, pure and simple.
This has been pointed out for years by brave women campaigners such as tennis star Martina Navratilova and former Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies, as well as unsung British heroines like Fiona McAnena at Sex Matters and Nicola Williams at Fair Play For Women.
Even one of the world's most famous trans women, Caitlyn Jenner, who, as Bruce Jenner was the 1976 men's Olympic decathlon gold medallist, has backed the ban on men in women's sports, saying that trans women are 'taking valuable opportunities' away from women athletes and causing them 'physical harm'.
A number of world and UK sports governing bodies, including swimming, cycling, athletics and golf, have felt the backlash and reversed their rules on trans athletes in recent years.
The Olympics may have to follow suit after US President Donald Trump signed an executive order that prevents transgender women from competing in female categories of sports, including the Los Angeles Olympics in 2028.
With the FA ruling, it's now clear the world of sport has finally woken up to the reality of biological sex and the importance of fairness on and off the pitch.
It's been a long time coming but women players have now well and truly hit the back of the net. The game is finally up for trans men competing in women's sport.
ARMED COPS NOT CRIMINALS
ONE night in September 2022, two men left their homes to do their jobs.
Both carried guns for their work. One was a violent criminal, the other was a police officer.
4
But you'd be hard pushed to know which is which these days after the police officer, Sgt Martyn Blake, shot dead criminal Chris Kaba, right, as he tried to use his car to ram police to escape arrest.
Despite firing only one bullet, in a bid to protect the lives of his police colleagues, Sgt Blake was charged with murder and hauled through the courts.
A jury rightly found Blake not guilty last year (without ever being told about Kaba's career as a gun-toting gangster) but now the officer faces a charge of gross misconduct by the Independent Office for Police Conduct which could result in him getting the sack.
Why would any police officer agree to carry a firearm today when they know that every split-second decision could leave them facing the sack or years behind bars?
It's bad enough that Sgt Blake was ever charged with a crime – and publicly named by the judge, resulting in a £20,000 bounty on his head – but now he faces losing his job simply for doing his job.
Armed police in the UK rarely open fire and, when they do, they must be given the benefit of the doubt and not treated like the criminals they are trying to protect us from.
Why would any police officer agree to carry a firearm today when they know that every split-second decision could leave them facing the sack or years behind bars?
Sgt Blake doesn't deserve any of this.
The only thing he deserves is a bravery medal for his heroism in keeping our streets safe from criminals like Kaba.