Kerby Anderson
Nearly half the state legislatures have passed laws requiring that only females can participate in girls’ and women’s sports. Some of these laws are being challenged in court along with court challenges in states that allow biological males to compete with biological females.
Gregory Brown is an exercise physiologist who documents the biological differences between men and women in sports. Many biological factors influence human performance, but “one of the most important factors that influences adaptations to training and performance in sports is sex, because sex influences every system and every cell in our body.”
A fair comparison between male and female differences in anatomy and physiology give males athletic advantages when compared to gifted and trained females of the same age. It is also true that puberty magnifies those sex-based differences. He lists those increased percentages in his article, and they are significant.
He also addresses the argument that hormone therapy decreases the biological advantages. For example, men have 30-60 percent higher muscle strength than women. Even after “undergoing testosterone suppression” the decrease in strength is less then 9 percent.
Sure, some women are taller than some men. Some women can run faster than some men. But the tallest women are shorter than the tallest men. The fastest men are faster than the fastest women. A blood test or a genetic test cannot determine a transgender identity. Biological sex is still present, and it is logical to assume the inherent male athletic advantages are still present.
This is the science that lawmakers, judges, coaches, and parents must accept. There are clear differences between men and women when competing in sports.

Kerby Anderson
What was the origin of the virus that caused Covid-19? We know the answer. Finally, the government is willing to state the obvious. Michael Shellenberger and others report that “multiple US government officials interviewed” now have identified “the first people infected by the virus.” When a source was asked how certain they were that these three scientists doing “gain of function” research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology are “patients zero,” they were told 100%.
Jim Geraghty reminds us that the first report of the outbreak came in February 3, 2020. That Chinese report was written in part by two of the men mentioned in the US government report. Also, remember what happened when Dr. Li Wenliang tried to warn the international community? He was dragged into a police station and berated for “rumormongering” and for “publishing untrue statements.” A month later he died of the virus.
In previous commentaries, I have expressed my disbelief that so few in the media seemed even curious about the origin of a virus that killed 23 million people worldwide. I realize that those numbers may be inflated, but at least we can agree that millions died and most of the media seem incurious. And the Chinese Communist government got away with lies and suppression in part because there are too many American companies doing business in China.
Noah Rothman calls this the “scandal of the century,” and laments that there are no consequences. The Chinese officials locked down a previously accessible public database, altered its data to hide the origin of the virus, and then took it offline altogether. It appears that the Chinese Communist Party got away with the “scandal of the century”.