What Would You Do If a Trans Athlete Injured Your Daughter?
Or if you had your child taken away for the crime of 'misgendering'?
A Massachusetts high school girls' basketball team was forced to forfeit its game after a transgender player on the opposing team injured three players.
The Collegiate Charter School of Lowell Girls' Basketball team dropped out of their February 8 game against KIPP Massachusetts after one of KIPP's players, who is a biological male, injured three of their athletes.
Collegiate Charter School officials said the team decided to forfeit because the other players feared getting injured and not being able to compete in the playoffs that were a few days later.
[…]
Shocking video from the game shows the taller, bulkier transgender player ripping the ball from another players arms, forcing her to fall.
The Collegiate Charter player is seen struggling to move and writhing in pain.
[…]
The KIPP's player that is a biological male who identifies as a female is more than 6 feet tall and has facial hair, a source told Fox News Digital.
Anyone who is not aware of the ironclad biological reality that men are stronger than women—a lot stronger—has been watching too much Netflix. The average woman is weaker than 998 out of 1,000 men. Putting women into contact sports with men puts them at risk of grievous bodily harm. Full stop.
And yet, in the name of “inclusion” and their own bottomless narcissism, that is what school officials across the Western world are doing…as a matter of policy:
The Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association said a player cannot be excluded from a team based on gender identity.
Section 43.3.1 on the handbook said, 'A student shall not be excluded from participation on a gender-specific sports team that is consistent with the student’s bona fide gender identity.'
The handbook noted a student cannot be listed on a team roster for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage.
'It is a recommended best practice that schools communicate with their opponents as necessary about the gender-specific needs of their team in order to promote inclusion,' said the handbook.
Even if you are not a parent, you likely find this enraging. All you need is a moral compass that is not pointed at full moron.
If you are a parent, you are probably asking yourself what you would do if this happened to your children. I know I am.
My focus is on the philosophy of human rights and natural law. My job is to provide you with an analysis through that lens. And I can tell you that based on that analysis, pretty much whatever you are thinking you might do would be justified…
We’ll start out with a riddle:
Q: What is yours, but is not your property?
A: Your children.
As a quick refresher—property is an extension of your self-ownership. You might, for example…
create something from previously unowned goods (a broom made from a stick and some straw).
trade your labor or ideas (build a stone wall for a farmer or sell a screenplay).
trade some good in exchange for another (your broom for a laying hen, or your screenplay for a whole chicken farm).
Your thoughts, choices, and actions are your own. The things to which you apply your thoughts, choices, and actions are your property (so long as you have not initiated coercive force against another in the process).
Human beings cannot be property, ever.
And yet your children are YOURS. They are made of you. We do not own our children, and yet we call them “ours.” This may be philosophically complicated, but so be it. It is the reality of nature. It is the nature of reality. And it is beautiful.
You have a fiduciary responsibility to your children. You caused them to exist, and so you are responsible for their well-being. Because of the fact that they start out helpless and slowly become less helpless over time, you must exercise authority over them, and you must relinquish that authority slowly, over time. This too is the way of things, and this too is beautiful.
ONLY YOU HAVE THAT AUTHORITY. Your children do not belong to the state. Your children do not belong to the collective. Your children are yours.
Your children. Yours. Not theirs.
You grant temporary authority to people to act in loco parentis. The babysitter. Aunt Clara. The School.
You expect them to do the bare minimum: to feed them and keep them from playing with fire.
You expect them to do what is expected of the particular people to whom you are granting this temporary authority. You know Aunt Clara is going to teach them to knit, and you’re cool with that. You know the babysitter is going to play with them, feed them, put them to bed, and then talk on the phone with her boyfriend for seven hours. You’re cool with that too. You expect the school to teach them academic subjects.
You do not expect the babysitter to watch Saw with your five-year-old.
You do not expect Aunt Clara to secretly make your child a Catholic.
You do not expect the school to expose your child to imminent bodily risk.
Subjecting your children to physical assault and injury is an attack against their rights as human beings, and yours as their parent.
It is not an “unfortunate incident.” It. Is. An. ATTACK.
And it is actionable as such.
Coda:
There is also this story, about a child who was forcibly taken from his/her parents because they ‘misgendered’ him/her. A little digging reveals that the child is 16, and thus could easily have gone through a legal emancipation process. Instead, the state—which has been almost entirely taken over by leftist lunacy—decided to ‘make an example’ of these parents and take their child in a grandiose gesture of force. And you wonder why I am an anarchist.
My wife and I are soon to have our first grandchild, a girl. We're thrilled by it, and it helps focus my mind on your question.
My knee-jerk response to your question is that I would sue the school, the school board, the male player involved, his parents, and anyone else culpable for gross negligence, bodily harm, and I'd seek hefty punitive damages.
I'd seek a lawyer who would take the case on contingency and demand an eye-watering judgment. I would not pick a 'nice guy' lawyer. I'd choose a shark who wears $5000 suits, wears two gold chains around his neck, and drives a Lamborghini.
I'd hope to see the liability insurance for offending school districts be canceled or have premiums that jump so high that the virtue-signaling, self-righteous weenies who allowed transgenders would have a convenient excuse to end their moronic policies on transgenders in sports. It would be a public service.
The nameless "woman" in this case has XY chromosomes in every cell in "her" body, with the exception of about half the sperm cells in "her" reproductive tract, which would be XX chromosomes. Henceforth a DNA test would be required for any self-declared "woman" to play on a women's team. No BS, no exceptions.
Otherwise, I guess I'm neutral on this subject.
The crazies want it both ways. They convicted a mother for not stopping her son from killing people. And they take children for not acknowledging their newfound pronouns. Our government is full of self absorbed idiots.