Defending Ryan Lochte

Let me start off by saying that yes, vandalism of a public bathroom, or any vandalism, is wrong. And Lochte needed to apologize for that—which he now has.

Actually, despite the opinion of self-important media commentators, and many people who apparently spend much of their time cheering for various celebrities to be brought down by scandal, Lochte’s apology got it exactly right. He apologized for his personal conduct that night, as well as for not initially telling the entire story of what happened, making it seem as if he had done absolutely nothing wrong. But he stood his ground on the other essential facts of that story, which he has stuck to since the beginning—and which police reports and surveillance cameras have now corroborated.

Lochte said the four swimmers were approached by men dressed as police or security guards, and prevented them from leaving. Check. Both video evidence and the police report agree with this.

He said the security guards demanded money. Check. Also true, judging from the video and the police report.

He said the guards demanded they sit on the ground, and would not allow them to leave until they had paid. The other three swimmers did so, and Lochte refused. Check.

Lochte said one of the men drew a gun and again demanded money. Check.

He said the men were eventually paid, and only then allowed Lochte and the other three to leave. Check.

In fact, the only part of Lochte’s story that has changed at all since news first broke last weekend was the location. Lochte first said the swimmers’ cab was pulled over by robbers posing as police, and later said that the cab was already stopped at a gas station when the security guards approached. A change, sure, but hardly a major difference. He also omitted the vandalism—which as I said above was a mistake. But again, it doesn’t change the fact that the four Americans were held at gunpoint until they handed over cash. No one is disputing this portion of Lochte’s account, which is really the central part of the story.

Now I’ve never been to Brazil, so I don’t know if police and security guards make a habit of extorting cash at gunpoint or if this is an unusual case. But, regardless of what might have transpired before, if several men had approached me brandishing weapons and demanding money, I would consider that a robbery. That’s not how a just law enforcement system operates—and yes, some norms of justice are common across cultures, or should be.

Good for Ryan Lochte for finally coming clean and apologizing for the vandalism. And good for him for also standing his ground and calling the incident what it was—a robbery. In that sense, Lochte and the others remain the victims.

Thank God for the Olympics

The Olympics are exactly what America needs right now.

After months (feeling like decades) of unending controversies, personal attacks, and general political chaos, we finally have two weeks of coming together as a country. Nobody cares what party Michael Phelps or Katie Ledecky are, or whether Simone Biles supports Trump or Allyson Felix is voting for Hillary. We can finally take something of a break from worrying about how close the nation might be to destruction, cheer on Team USA, and remember everything that brings Americans together.

I will be stunned if Donald Trump does not make at least half a dozen ridiculous statements over the course of these Games, but he finally will not be the only story in town. We can all watch, and cheer, and feel good about our country when an American takes gold and the national anthem begins to play.

The Olympics were designed to bring the world together, but they can also serve to bring the country closer together. This may not be the most divisive election in American history—yet—but it is easily the most divisive in decades, for good reason. The Olympics this year will hopefully serve as a cooling off period for the country, however brief, and remind all of us that no matter the politics, we are all on the same team in the end.

How Long Before Gender-Segregated Sports Are Eliminated?

As I’ve said previously, what were considered eternal pillars of human culture just ten years ago are now being challenged on an almost daily basis. The latest examples of this are the debates over “bathroom bills” which seek to clarify that only biological men can use the men’s public restrooms, and conversely that only biological women can use women’s restrooms. (The reality, which usually isn’t reported, is that most conservatives are fine with transgender individuals using the bathroom of their chosen gender, as long as they’ve undergone reassignment surgery.)

The most common compromise suggested in such debates is to have gender-neutral bathrooms set aside specifically for transgender individuals. This has the added benefit of accommodating “gender-fluid” individuals who don’t identify as either male or female. But some of those individuals respond by arguing that by being directly to special restroom facilities, they are being discriminated against. This, coupled with the notion among some radical feminists that separate facilities for men and women serve as gender discrimination, is slowly giving rise to the notion that gender-segregated restrooms and similar facilities should be done away with entirely.

To be clear, only a very few on the hard Left have advanced this idea so far. But I could see it taking hold among a larger proportion of liberals in the years ahead, possibly to the point where the issue will be debated in the political mainstream.

The many reasons why such proposals must be rejected out of hand should be clear. But along with the debate over bathrooms will come a broader debate over other facilities and activities segregated by gender, and in honor of the opening of the Olympics I want to look at that possibility as well.

Specifically: Within the next decade, will we see the end of gender-segregated sports? Will men’s swimming and women’s track be eliminated in favor of events open to both genders? And what would such an arrangement look like?

Change is already coming to the Olympics, with the IOC issuing new guidelines allowing, for the first time, transgender athletes compete in events corresponding with their gender identity, without having to first undergo reassignment surgery. To be clear, those athletes must still be undergoing hormone replacement therapy, but the change is still significant.

But take a movement away from specialized gender roles in recent years, such as the American military allowing women to serve in combat roles; a resistance by many on the Left to recognize any sort of biological difference between genders, coupled with a movement away from biology and toward psychology as a way to determine gender; and the long history of the IOC and other international bodies in actively promoting a variety of liberal causes—and the possibility, at the very least, of the eventual elimination of gender-segregated sports at the international level becomes clear. From there, it is a practical matter of the U.S. Olympic trials and other national competitions becoming gender-neutral, a change that would eventually filter down to the state and local levels of competition.

It’s impossible to know for sure how just how likely any of this is of actually occurring. The only thing that’s clear is that the current trend suggests that such an outcome, within the next couple of decades, is at least possible.

But if it does occur, and gender-segregated sports are eliminated? There would be no ignoring for long the scientific fact that men and women are biologically different, which leads to differing average results between genders in physical activities, and is the reason segregated sports exist in the first place. Assuming every athlete continues to perform at their absolute best, a wide discrepancy would emerge between men and women in terms of those athletes making it to the World Championships or the Olympics, as well as those who eventually won medals.

The only option to keep both gender-neutral events and a more even ratio between male and female victors would be to institute some sort of affirmative action program, at both the initial qualifying stage and to determine the final individual medalists. Of course, this would seemingly undermine the whole point of having gender-neutral events in the first place, but realistically it would be the only way such an arrangement could survive over the long term.