On the controversy regarding trans athletes, it seems to me that some people enjoy grasping onto vague anecdotes that seem compelling on the surface but are full of nuance, in order to substantiate their prejudices. I offer two other examples of this practice:
1. Remember the woman who sued McDonald's because her coffee was too hot? Outrageous, right? Well, what most of us weren't told was that the water was served at 135 degrees and the woman had first and second degree burns on her legs when the coffee spilled in her car and that McDonald's had already received myriad complaints about scalding hot coffee.
2. Every time a police officer is caught on video beating up a suspect, people chime in and say, that criminal had it coming! Well, sure the criminal is a criminal but a cop is there to arrest people, not beat them to a pulp.
So, the next time someone complains about a transwoman athlete, remind them that said athlete is taking a cocktail of hormones that essentially shaves away any and all advantages that a genetic man might have over a woman of the same height and weight. Science is a stubborn thing.
