Select Page

The IOC is allowing trans women to compete in the Olympics against biological women.

I commented on my opinion on this previously.

But The Federalist’s Jessica Gulmire added a wrinkle I didn’t consider in her column about the IOC decision:

Viewership is what it’s all about. It’s no secret that the Olympic Games have been losing ratings for years. Blame their old-fashioned ceremonies, their cheesy endorsements, or the outdated network broadcast littered with commercials no one watches. Whatever the reason, they need something new, something fresh.

Women’s sports don’t draw the same ratings as men’s, unless of course we parade about in lingerie. It’s a harsh reality. That is what makes news of the change in the Olympic rules so defeatist.

This is a valid point. Absent the outliers of gymnastics and skating, men tend to receive more coverage on a sport-by-sport basis. Last year’s Winter Olympics in were the first time that the total time shifted towards women. As shown here, excluding pair events, women’s sports received 52.2% of NBC’s total airtime. What is not shown is how much of that was due to who was participating. Famous female skiers, for example, or up and coming new snowboarders. Also remember, the numbers here are only NBC’s primetime coverage, not the coverage on all the other NBC stations, or at other times.

So, of course the money matters to NBC. That is how they pay their people and all.

The problem is, outside the freakshow aspect (and while I don’t subscribe to that, many others will), what is the attraction of biological men outperforming biological women? Especially to women? Especially to, perhaps, younger girls just starting out, who see in the plainest possible terms that there is no fair playing field for them anymore…

Just going to toss this out there then…how does the IOC define a trans woman? What threshold will they use? And how will that be received by the left (hint: poorly, no matter what they say)?