Paula Scanlon, Chloe Cole vs. gender-affirming care, Democrats

Chloe Cole's heartbreaking story of so-called gender re-affirming care brought the house down. During her opening statement, she talked about gender re-affirming care as a "pseudoscience. According to this article, "Cole was prompted by Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), who asked her to comment on the inherent worth of everyone going through sexual confusion as a child. Roy closed by asking if Cole believed the American healthcare system had failed her. 'On every single level: By doctors and systemically,' Cole replied."

Paula Scanlan offered a different story. In her opening statement, Scanlan brought home the reality of dealing with interacting with males participating in women's sports. She said that she was Lia Thomas's teammate at the University of Pennsylvania. Ms. Scanlan talked about life in the locker room. She talked about how University administrators treated her and her other teammates.

In her opening statement, Ms. Scanlan said "My teammates and I were forced to undress in the presence of Lia, a six-feet four-inch tall biological man fully intact with male genitalia, 18 times per week. Some girls opted to change in bathroom stalls and others used the family bathroom to avoid this. When we tried to voice our concern to the Athletic Department, we were told that Lia swimming and being in our locker room was non-negotiable and we were offered psychological services to attempt to re-educate us to become comfortable with the idea of undressing in front of a male."

The fact that Will Thomas didn't fully transition should be a red flag to the University. These women are victims, not the problem. Unfortunately, that isn't how the University viewed it:

To sum up the university's response: we, the women, were the problem, not the victims. We were expected to conform—to move over and shut up. Our feelings didn’t matter. The university was gaslighting and fear-mongering women to validate the feelings and identity of a male.

This is the videotape of Chloe Cole's opening statement:

For their part, Democrats stuck to the script that biological males should be normalized. Further, Democrats thought that Republicans were transphobes. Then there's this:

As an attempt to voice my concerns about the situation we were forced into—revealing the unfair and unjust treatment—I wrote an Op-Ed for Daily Pennsylvanian, the University of Pennsylvania student-run newspaper. I approached this from a scientific, statistical perspective where I used my engineering background to discuss how Y-chromosomes cannot be changed by any surgical procedure or systemic therapy. This biological fact lends itself to athletic advantages that cannot be mitigated by lowering testosterone levels, which are readily apparent in sports competitions and locker rooms.

Simply put Democrats haven't figured out that they aren't following the science. They're just following their cult-like emotions. One last thing:

This is representative of a greater issue, the destruction of free speech. Today any discussion of maintaining the sanctity of women’s spaces is labeled transphobic, bigoted, and hateful. What’s bigoted and hateful is the discrimination against women and the efforts to erase women and our equal opportunities, dignity, and safe spaces. One may ask, why do I speak so passionately about issues that seem hypothetical or that some may perceive as impacting only a small number of women? This is not hypothetical, this is real. I know women who have lost roster spots and spots on the podium. I know of women with sexual trauma who are adversely impacted by having biological males in their locker room without their consent.

This is an assault on biological women. It isn't based upon science because, frankly, the people pushing this haven't collected enough data to call it science. Chloe Cole put it best when she called it pseudoscience. Ideology is fitting, too, because of the lack of science.

So-called sex-change operations have been around 75 years, perhaps more. Those were mostly performed on adults. The recent assault, though, has focused on children whose minds aren't fully developed. Pushing this ideology on sub-teens is radical. It isn't based on science. Therefore, it shouldn't be available to all but the rarest conditions, if even then.