Chelsea Mitchell is a high school track star who feels she's been robbed of opportunities being forced to compete against biological males. It's a contentious and "controversial" issue unless you're most Americans who understand science. A lawsuit has been filed on her behalf. Mitchell wrote an Op/Ed about the matter for USA Today. Let me let you in on some insider lingo: "Op" stands for "opinion." Mitchell expressed her opinion. Someone who disagrees can write a rebuttal to express their opinion. That was how it worked in the olden days. Today? You can get USA Today to apologize for even running the piece and have them edit the op-ed on your behalf.

The Op-Ed is behind a paywall, so I'm using Townhall as a source. You're free to pay to read it if you feel like it. Or, you can tell USA Today to eat a bag of shit.

Chelsea's op-ed now contains the following disclaimer/apology/the editors begging for forgiveness:

This column has been updated to reflect USA TODAY's standards and style guidelines. We regret that hurtful language was used.

Here is an original paragraph of what's considered Chelsea's "hurtful language."

Instead, all I can think about is how all my training, everything I've done to maximize my performance, might not be enough, simply because there's a runner on the line with an enormous physical advantage: a male body.

Nothing hurtful there that I see. It sounds more like science. Males and females have different biological traits. Some male traits are superior to some female traits, and vice versa. We were intelligently designed that way. If you want to find the hurtful language, you need to look really closely. Squint and try to turn off your brain. It's near the end of the sentence.

It's the word "male." As in, a biological male.

Instead, all I can think about is how all my training, everything I've done to maximize my performance, might not be enough, simply because there's a transgender runner on the line with an enormous physical advantage.

What I find most hysterical is that the word "male" isn't the most relevant part of that sentence. You can call the opposing runner male, transgender, or ham sandwich. What makes Chelsea's case is "enormous physical advantage." As in, the enormous physical advantage people who are born wielding a penis are born with. Her argument is still valid. Trans-activists (presumably) tweeting angry things at the newspaper aren't disputing that. USA Today and the permaoffended woke mob are simply arguing over labels. Their outrage only draws more attention to the issue.

Message received. Transgenders are okay with the unfair advantage. Just don'tt misgender them.

Looking for a fashionable way to support Louder with Crowder? Get your swag at Crowdershop today!