18 December—Last Friday, 16 December, with nine days to go to Christmas, the notorious U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit gave transgender women in Connecticut, New York, and Vermont (that’s the Second Circuit) a wonderful Christmas present. It was no surprise—to me, anyway.

Affirming the problematic but unquestionably politically correct decision of the trial court—the U.S. District Court of Connecticut—the Second Circuit ruled that people who identify as female but were born male must be allowed to compete in athletic competitions with females who were born female. What the hell, you sigh, what difference does it make?

Well, without aspersing any gender—male, female, trans, or other—is it fair for athletes with an innate hormonal and physical advantage to compete with the hormonally and physically (relatively) disadvantaged? Not so fast. Because, when you think about it, it may well be fair, since all athletes, even those who maintain their birth genders, are not created equal.

After all, while athletic competition is supposed to be about physical and strategic skill, it’s also obviously about physical prowess, strength, and stamina. And therein, so it would seem, males have a clear advantage over females. Thus, without considering gender at birth, don’t converts from masculinity have a built-in advantage?

Not necessarily. And that the born-female plaintiffs were able on occasion to best their transgender opponents proves that transgender athletes identifying as female don’t always have a built-in advantage.

And is the purpose of athletic competition to challenge or to equalize? In addition to entertaining, of course. Even within the female gender now, the International Olympic Committee is cracking down on female-born athletes with “excessive” levels of testosterone. That just plain stinks and is patently unfair, perhaps even more so than the Second Circuit’s transgender decision. But it’s the ever-corrupt IOC, after all.

I expect the plaintiffs will appeal to the Supreme Court. If four justices vote to accept the case, the majority likely will decide for the plaintiffs. But would that be fair? I really can’t say . . .