Sex and Gender Identity in Skiing

The International Ski Federation (FIS) has decided to test the gender of women participating in competitions. According to its president, Johan Eliasch, “this policy is the cornerstone of our commitment to protect women’s sport, and we are convinced that there is only one fair and transparent way to do that: by relying on science and biological facts.”

I’m eagerly waiting to see whether this statement sparks protests among so-called woke people, who are often heard claiming that humans have a vast number of different genders. Eliasch’s comment, however, seems to rest on the assumption that there are only two: male and female, determined by genes.

On the other hand—in my understanding—the overwhelming majority of people do recognize that while there may be numerous gender identities experienced by individuals, sex is ultimately a fact tied to reproduction. Those who are capable of fathering children are men, and those who are capable of giving birth are women. Everyone else represents exceptions to this rule, not distinct sexes.

As for the issue itself, it should simply be said that the FIS decision is exactly right for women’s sports, since hardly any reasonable spectator would want to see the same kind of farce on the ski tracks as was witnessed in the boxing rings at the Paris Olympics, where male violence against women was legalized and broadcast live on TV.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Feminists, Woke, and DEI People Justify Violence Against Women
UK Supreme Court Distinguishes Between the Rights of Women and Trans Women
Finnish Trans Woman Speaks Out on Transgender Rights in Sports

On Freedom, Debate, and the Murder of Charlie Kirk

As my esteemed reader surely knows, on Wednesday in the United States, Charlie Kirk, the founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, was shot. The identity of the shooter is not yet known for sure, although one suspect, Tyler Robinson, has been named and arrested. Based on images released to the public, he appears to be a young white man.

The weapon used in the murder has apparently been found, but the shooter’s identity has not been established—or at least it has not been disclosed. Instead, engravings were found on the bullets in the gun, expressing transsexual and antifascist ideology.

On this basis, it has been suspected that the shooter’s motive was left-liberal or at least ideological in nature. Nevertheless—or perhaps precisely for that reason—President Donald Trump has urged his famously right-wing conservative supporters to respond peacefully.

* * *

For my part, I see that although the violent ending of a human life is already in itself an extremely serious crime, the saddest long-term consequence of the murder is its effect on freedom of speech, and through that, on the future of American society. This is because Charlie Kirk was known as someone who was willing to engage in public debate with people whose worldview differed radically from his own.

Thus, despite belonging to the most conservative end of the political spectrum, he maintained cross-party debate in a country where the lines of polarization between people have tightened considerably in recent years. And as a result of this activity, he was killed—instead of rising to become a nationwide political figure.

The risk in this situation is that, as a consequence of the murder, other people who bravely voice their views—that is, those who take part in societal discussion—will also fall silent out of fear, thereby narrowing the dialogue between extremes even further. At the same time, the polarization of American society will deepen, and in the worst case we may end up in a situation where the political movement in power at the time—or at least its supporters—are left without the healthy societal criticism they need.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Unintended Consequences of Modern Value Shifts
Freedom of Speech in Danger
Finland Will Thrive with Any US President, Trump Survived the Assassination Attempt

Love and a Regurgitated Gift

In the world of fruit flies, romance can take surprising forms. The species Drosophila subobscura has a peculiar courtship ritual: before mating, a male must win over the female by giving her a gift. But instead of flowers or chocolates, he offers her a tiny mouth-to-mouth meal of regurgitated food. Interestingly, their close cousin Drosophila melanogaster—the fruit fly most often used in laboratories—doesn’t do this at all.

So what makes one species a generous suitor while the other skips the gift exchange? Japanese researchers discovered that the difference comes down to a single gene, called FruitlessM (FruM), which helps wire male brains for courtship behavior. In D. subobscura, this gene switches on in a group of brain cells that regulate feeding. When FruM is missing, the cells don’t grow the connections they need, and the males fail to present their nuptial gift.

Even more intriguing, when scientists turned on FruM in the same brain cells of D. melanogaster, something remarkable happened: the cells sprouted new connections, and the males began regurgitating food more often—hinting at a hidden potential for gift-giving buried in their biology.

This research shows how a small genetic change can spark big differences in behavior between species. What looks like a simple act of food sharing is, in fact, the product of evolutionary history written deep in the wiring of the brain.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Climate Warning Signs Were There 130 Years Ago – If Only We Had Noticed
Preventing future fires in Hawaii is possible, but the question remains: Are animal activists and politicians prepared for the necessary measures?
Seeing sex developed novel cultures