Former conservative Matt Schlapp defends transgender narrative in Lia Thomas' sports competition

The chairman of the American Conservative Union (ACU) went on Twitter to say that male swimmer Lia Thomas, who changed his name from Will Thomas, [and thereby magically became a female] "deserves our compassion," rather than the women with whom he competed and easily defeated in swimming competitions. 

Thomas went from the men's swim team at UPenn to the women's team at the school and as a man with XY chromosomes and a penis which he proudly has no qualms to display in the ladies locker room, has smashed the existing female swimming records of the school. When he swam against men, he was mediocre at best and placed 554 nationally in the 200 freestyle. He also scores in the mid-500s in other events against men.

According to an anonymous female on the UPenn team, Thomas admitted that he is still sexually attracted to women, not men, so it's obvious that he's a disgusting, selfish prick who doesn't care that he's competing unfairly and possibly taking away the chances of other women to compete at higher levels in their category. If there's anyone who deserves our compassion, it's the women, not the dude known as Lia Thomas.

Matt Schlapp shared a New York Post article about Thomas pushing back against his critics on March 6th. The ACU chairman captioned the article, “No matter what one thinks of Lia’s ability to swim with women her story deserves our compassion. It will be interesting to hear Lia’s pov in 30 years.”

Her story? WTF?

Referring to Thomas as "her" is giving in to the narrative that he's a female and going along with the Left.

No matter what one thinks of Lia’s ability to swim with women her story deserves our compassion. It will be interesting to hear Lia’s pov in 30 years. https://t.co/NLY9f6TO6I

Sorry Mr. Schlapp, I have more compassion for the women who have to put up with Thomas exposing his bat and balls in the lady's locker room and his self-serving behavior. I have absolutely no compassion for him and I believe Schlapp showed his lack of backbone in an attempt to show his virtue.

The editor-in-chief of Swimming World Magazine wrote that the “numbers paint a clear picture” when Thomas competed as a male versus competing now as a female, highlighting the existence of a serious advantage Thomas has over the women he’s competing against.

“The fact that the University of Pennsylvania swimmer has soared from a mid-500s ranking (554th in the 200 freestyle) in men’s competition to the top-ranked swimmer in women’s competition tells the story of the unfairness which is unfolding at the NCAA level.”

Schlapp received some well-deserved pushback on social media. John Cardillo, a former Newsmax host wrote:

“No Matt. HIS story deserves no compassion. He’s a spoiled brat ruining college sports for his female teammates and competitors. I have compassion for them and want to hear their stories. You establishment ‘conservatives’ will cave every single time.”

Cardillo nailed it with the last sentence.

Matt Walsh of the Daily Wire echoed my sentiment:

No, it doesn’t. Also if you’re playing the “preferred pronoun” game you’ve already lost. You’ve surrendered reality to the Left. There is nothing left to fight for. https://t.co/TDHr40Ylmw

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) March 8, 2022

As did Erick Erickson:

*His* story. And while the dude is clearly going through a mental struggle for which we should show concern, we should have more empathy and concern for the girls who are being ignored and pushed aside by the elite so a stronger guy can pose as a girl. https://t.co/iAHtwA54MF

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) March 8, 2022

Here's more:

Really. Her? When men are infiltrating girls’ and women’s teams, bathrooms, locker rooms, prisons, and abuse shelters, this is the approach? https://t.co/KPCM7uTRdL

— Allie Beth Stuckey (@conservmillen) March 8, 2022

Matt has FIVE daughters… Would he feel it’s compassionate if a biological male with male genitalia were in the locker room with them against their consent? https://t.co/KrHr8OLJfK

— Liz Wheeler (@Liz_Wheeler) March 8, 2022

Wait, wait, wait. The founder of CPAC is down with the anti woman ideology of transgenderism?! I want off that particular conservative train. https://t.co/soBtAopbjM

— Rod Dreher (@roddreher) March 8, 2022

Schlapp also went back and forth in a tweetfest with former Trump campaign lawyer Jenna Ellis.

She tweeted:

No. None of this is remotely conservative, principled, or truthful, Matt. What are you doing?!

It’s sad to see CPAC leadership and the GOP establishment cave to the LGBT agenda.

I will not support this. https://t.co/E0xUPGzT0r

— Jenna Ellis (@JennaEllisEsq) March 8, 2022

Schlapp retweeted and responded, 

“Jenna all I am saying is in the end trans people deserve our love and compassion. We should defend girls sports against competing w men aggressively but in the end remember that all people deserve respect. Kinda simple. If showing decency makes you boycott @CPAC I’m good w it.”

Ellis replied:

That’s not all you said, Matt. You can’t walk back calling a man “her” under the guise of “love and compassion.” Love and compassion requires speaking truth.

Conservatives, this is an open call from Matt to abandon CPAC because he is unwilling to stand for truth.

Do it.

— Jenna Ellis (@JennaEllisEsq) March 8, 2022

But rather than having an honest argument with Ellis, Schlapp went back at her with an ad hominem attack:

Jenna this is a false controversy. You are upset w @CPAC bc we didn’t invite you to speak. We score the bills aimed at protecting girls sports and our kids from gender confusion indoctrination. I don’t wish to normalize it but simply just deal w it w compassion. https://t.co/ODcAaSoQJp

— Matt Schlapp (@mschlapp) March 8, 2022

Schlapp has lost my respect and I hope Mercedes talks with him about what he said about Thomas and what he said to Jenna Ellis. She, Ellis, did not deserve that kind of remark, and he, Thomas, did not deserve compassion for what he is doing in the world of swimming competition.

* * *

For more hard-hitting content, subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against global warming, the heebie-jeebies and COVID-19.

* * *

Sclapp needs to resign his position with CPAC and Thomas needs to swim with the men, no matter what bathing attire he chooses to wear.

Tweet

7 Reasons why the climate deal sucked for the U.S.

President Trump has met a campaign promise to get the United States out of the Paris climate deal, aka Paris Climate Accord. Leftists are screaming absurd claims that the world, as we know it, is coming to an end. 

But do they even know what the deal is all about?

Here are seven reasons the deal sucks both for the world, and especially for the United States.

1.  The agreement is just that--an agreement. It was meant to be a treaty but in order for the U.S. to sign a treaty it must be passed by two-thirds of Congress. Former President Obama knew he had a snowflake's chance in hell of that happening, so he went ahead using his executive powers and circumvented Congress. Thus, President Trump can unilaterally get rid of it like a bad rash.

The agreement, as such, is more like a "handshake." It is unenforceable and non-binding, which means that you can count on countries like China, India, Russia and Iran, just for starters, to do what's in their own best interests in terms of industrial growth .  .  .  because they can.

President Trump said of the deal: "China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So we can't build the plants but they can, according to this agreement. India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020."

The Washington Post countered Trump's statement saying: "This is False. The agreement is non-binding and each nation sets its own targets. There is nothing in the agreement that stops the United States from building coal plants or gives China or India to build coal plants .  .  .  "

But The Washington Post can't have it both ways. If, as they say, it wouldn't stop the United States from building coal plants, then what's the point of the agreement if nobody is required to go along with it?

And what can be done if a country doesn't meet its goals or even increases greenhouse gases?

Nothing.

As Mr. Trump says, the agreement gives a lopsided advantage to China and India. In fact, it gives an advantage to any country that does what it wants to do in its own best interests in terms of industrial/manufacturing growth.  

2.  The major premise of the agreement is to reach the goal of holding global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial revolution levels. But this number is based on unproven and currently unknown future technology.

We know that humans contribute to global warming but we haven't a clue as to what extent that is.

3.  We will need more, not less, energy in the future. The International Energy Agency predicts that by 2040, our energy demands will grow by 37 percent as the world population approaches 9 billion.

4.  The wording of the Paris climate deal is often ambiguous. For example, it says that "All parties should cooperate to enhance the capacity of develop country Parties to implement this agreement." And, "Parties shall cooperate in taking measures as appropriate, to enhance climate change education, training, public awareness, public participation and public access to information."

How must countries cooperate? What are appropriate measures?

5.  So far, since it was signed, not a single country has done anything in the form of environmental action to comply with the deal. 

Every action has already begun before the accord was signed. The West will continue to work on reducing emissions and greenhouse gases while countries like China and India will continue to do all they can to grow.


6.  There is scant evidence Obama's proposed actions would have caused us to meet the goals of the accord. 

In fact, there's clear evidence that the United States will be in compliance with the accord without even being part of it. The fact is, our emissions continue to decrease nationally and are less than they were ten years ago.

Let's be honest--the left is angry because President Trump has shown the accord to be meaningless on one level, and destructive to our country, on another. 

7.  None of the countries actually intend to comply with the agreement and the West will meet the emissions goals set by the accord anyway, without taking further action.

The process was psychological. It helps us feel good about ourselves. If we signed the accord, we were the good guys; those who didn't were science deniers because "the science is settled."

How totally unscientific.

Anyone who really looks at the science does not doubt the planet is warming and humans do play some role. But let's face it, when scientists told us the world  was cooling, they came up with solutions for fix it. But they haven't changed their proposed fixes on global warming, and that's disconcerting.

If the problem changes but the solutions remain the same, that's screwed up.

As Erick Erickson explains in The Daily Wire:

In every case, the environmentalist left insists on a highly regulated command and control economy with abortion on demand and other measures to institute population control. Large families are a blight on the planet as is capitalism. There is a reason so much of the environment movement is referred to as a watermelon movement. They are green on the outside, but still red from their days of communist activism on the inside. Much of the modern environmentalist movement derives from Soviet era funded leftwing movements. Western communists turned into environmentalists after the Soviet Union collapsed. Now, instead of seeking to destroy capitalism in the name of equality, they seek to destroy it in the name of the environment. Instead of targeting large Christian families or ideas, they target them for resource consumption .  .  .  "

" .  .  .  All of us are supposed to be good stewards of our planet. We should conserve our resources and raise our children to appreciate God's creation. No one wants to see the world uninhabitable. But you'll have to forgive me for not caring about global warming. I trust the science. I just do not trust the supposed scientists."

And I trust that President Trump absolutely made the right decision to pull us out of the mud.




Tweet