Charlie Baker, the NCAA President and former governor of Massachusetts, recently took to Capitol Hill to defend what can only be described as his magnum opus: the art of putting men in women’s sports. With all the poise of a politician trying to dodge a straight answer, Baker argued in favor of “inclusion” while expertly sidestepping the obvious biological males competing against women is about as fair as pitting a sumo wrestler against a ballerina. As questions heated up, Baker sat stone-faced and unamused, as if the sheer absurdity of his argument wasn’t unraveling before him.
Baker’s testimony was a masterclass in rhetorical gymnastics, rivaling any Olympian. Words like “fairness” and “equity” were thrown around with wild abandon, but when pressed on how allowing biological males to dominate women’s competitions could possibly be fair, Baker pivoted faster than an NBA point guard. “It’s about creating opportunities for everyone,” he declared, apparently forgetting that women fought for decades to have their own sports precisely because competing against men wasn’t “fair” in the first place.
Of course, Baker’s performance wouldn’t be complete without the obligatory emotional anecdotes. He waxed poetic about inclusion and diversity as if throwing a few buzzwords into the mix could magically erase the reality of male athletes shattering women’s records. Meanwhile, female athletes with dreams of scholarships and championships are told to sit down, shut up, and “be inclusive” as their hard-earned victories are snatched away by competitors with a biological advantage.
What was truly priceless, though, was Baker’s unamused expression as senators hammered him with questions he had no real answers for. Each time he was asked to explain how fairness could be preserved under his policies, he shuffled awkwardly in his seat, lips pressed thin, as if hoping his buzzwords could substitute for logic.
What’s truly ironic is Baker’s insistence that his approach represents progress. Progress for whom? Certainly not for the young women who train their entire lives only to lose to someone who had the benefit of testosterone and greater muscle mass for most of their development. But don’t expect Baker to address that. His job isn’t to protect women’s sports, it’s to toe the politically correct line and hope the outrage fades before the next congressional hearing.
In the end, Baker’s testimony was less about fairness and more about virtue signaling on steroids. The real victims here aren’t the NCAA executives or the activists cheering from the sidelines, they’re the women who are being told their sports, their records, and their opportunities matter less than the politics of the moment. Baker may be championing inclusion, but at what cost? For female athletes, it’s becoming painfully clear: the cost is their chance to compete on a level playing field.
Comments