By Sarah Holliday

Earlier this month, the revelatoryCass review was published. The report, conducted by former president of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health Dr. Hilary Cass, found “remarkably weak evidence” that “gender affirming services” for children have any positive outcomes. The British Government responded to the results by announcing there will be “a fundamental change” in how they manage the gender identity politics concerning medical care moving forward. It now appears that the push toward acknowledging biological reality in the U.K. is moving beyond clinics.

This week, the British Government’s Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer dove into the males in female sports controversy when she made the argument that biological males have an “indisputable edge” over female athletes, concluding that male athletes who identify as transgender should be prohibited from “competing in top-level female sports events,” Breitbart reported. The biological differences between men and women “not only give transgender women an unfair competitive advantage,” Frazer wrote for The Daily Mail, “but threaten the safety of female athletes in the sports arena.”

She continued, “That’s why this week I called together representatives from key sporting organizations, like the England and Wales Cricket Board and Football Association, to encourage them to follow the lead of other sports in not allowing trans athletes to compete against women at the elite level.” Many are acknowledging how significant this development is, given that the definition of what a woman is can scarcely be answered these days.

The solution Frazer is presenting is that those who understand the biological realities of what a man is and what a woman is must join to proclaim the message more zealously. “The need for clear action from all sports becomes more pressing with each passing week,” Frazer added. “In competitive sport, biology matters. And … this should not be ignored.” And in direct response to the Cass Review, she emphasized “that inaction and a failure to confront the issues at stake cannot be an option.”

But how is progress made on an issue many claim doesn’t exist? Take Harvard University, for example. The editorial board of the Ivy League’s student newspaper published an article on April 16 titled, “There Are Many Obstacles Facing Women’s Sports. Trans Athletes Aren’t One.” In short, The Harvard Crimson’s Editorial Board writer Jonathan G. Yuan made the argument that “the science is … less conclusive” as it relates to whether “transgender women hold a biological edge over their cisgender opponents.”

Breitbart’s Warner Huston does well in pointing out the errors in Yuan’s argument, noting that “in the process of making the” assertions it did, “the article ignored all evidence to the contrary to support their own claim that transgender athlete participation is wholly benign.” But nonetheless, the push against true science continues — not only in a student newspaper, but also in government.

Just Tuesday, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs (D) “vetoed a bill to codify the meaning of ‘woman’ in state law, becoming the second female Democratic governor to nix such legislation over concerns about transgender rights,” The Washington Times wrote. Similar to a bill passed by Idaho Governor Brad Little (R) last week, Arizona’s Senate Bill 1628 would have provided biological “definitions for sex-based terms used in statutes, administrative rules, regulations and public policies.” But Hobbs’s veto, which was one of 13 in recent days, was not free from backlash.

In a statement, Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen (R) said, “Instead of helping these confused boys and men, Democrats are only fueling the disfunction by pretending biological sex doesn’t matter.” He continued, “Our daughters, granddaughters, nieces, and neighbors are growing up in a dangerous time where they are living with an increased risk of being victimized in public bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms because Democrats are now welcoming biological males into what used to be traditionally safe, single-sex spaces.”

State Senator Sine Kerr (R), the sponsor of the bill, urged, “The madness needs to stop.” She added that “real women must continue to push back, stand for truth, and make their voices heard to advocate for the protection of their rights.” But even though this fight is facing setbacks in some states, Louisiana is taking strides in the right direction.

While it’s not specifically related to the issue of defining gender, Louisiana is fighting to give parents back the right to decide what role gender ideology plays in the lives of their children. According to The Epoch Times, “The Louisiana House and Senate have advanced legislation this week that, if signed by newly seated Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, would prohibit sexual indoctrination and the teaching of critical race theory (CRT) in schools.”

Specifically, House Bill 121, also known as the Given Name Act, states that the “Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution … protects the right of parents to direct the care, upbringing, education, and welfare of their children.” As such, the legislation would require parental approval before students can be referred to by any name or pronoun other than their original name and biological pronouns.

Given all this information, the elephant in the room is: Why is it so hard for some people to recognize the biological differences between men and women? It’s a simple question, some would argue, and Meg Kilgannon, Family Research Council’s senior fellow for Education Studies, shared her insight with The Washington Stand. The reason such a simple reality is tossed aside, she explained, is because “they are not accepting there is a reality.”

Kilgannon emphasized what NPR’s CEO Katherine Maher said during a TED talk, namely, that truth is subjective. Maher stated, “[W]e all have different truths. They’re based on things like where we come from, how we were raised, and how other people perceive.” And for Kilgannon, it’s this mindset that leads the Left into a worldview where men can be women and women can be men.

“They don’t believe there is truth,” she added. It’s as though “they don’t believe anything except the fact that they don’t believe anything. It’s the age old trope of [they] say there’s no definitive truth and [they] say that in a definitive statement.” It’s a cyclical argument, she observed, which is hard to escape from.

So, why is it that the question of biological realities is hard for some to answer? As Kilgannon concluded, “If they answer the question, they have to admit that there is a value associated with the item.” Or in other words, a mindset like this means that answering a simple question leads to the collapse of an entire worldview.

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.