top of page

All Things Being Equal. - Do the rules get bent?


Greetings to all. Thanks again to Dean Burgess for a great blog post last week. But now, let's talk about how far society pushing the words EQUALITY, EQUAL, and FAIRNESS. Or are we? When any two things are compared to determine equality, the playing field must be the same. For example, you might say an apple and an orange are equal as they are both fruits. However, they are not equal. As the saying goes, you are not comparing apples to apples. In this post, we will take a look at equality and fairness. However, before I begin, understand this is a post about the facts. Facts or truth, opinions bend the truth.

In addition, I am sure I will repeat myself throughout this post to dismiss any misunderstandings.

I fully support an individual's right to choose who they want to be and openly display who they are without discrimination.


Equality has turned into a dirty word in society. Why? Because people INSIST on having equality regardless of the comparison. The basics of equality are simple. All people need to be treated as equals, which means equally. Any woman who is qualified for a job traditionally held by a man and cannot get that job is not considered equal. Regardless of race, color, gender, or creed, if qualified, should be considered for any position. PERIOD!

The playing field is equal because they are all qualified for the position they are applying for. It is people that cause things NOT to be equal. But in today's society, it goes deeper than that. In today's world, with the various types of genders and what some wish to be called by virtue of their gender, name, likes, or dislikes, makes the playing field is not equal in most cases.

Equality, like other words, is often a perception of the person using the word or words based on their interpretation of equality. That perception can vary amongst people. Therefore, I think it is safe to say that the word EQUALITY is pushed past the limits of its definition.


We all remember during the hearing for Judge Jackson as a Supreme Court nominee, she was unable to answer what on the surface, seemed to be an easy question to answer. "What is a woman?" Of course, almost everyone will point out the human physical differences between a man and a woman to answer the question. However, is that even accurate anymore? Now someone can call themselves a man or a woman, and that's what they are. Regardless of the bodily organs, they possess. They can be Debbie one day, David the next, and Sue by the end of the week. This creates much confusion, and most steer away from the topic not to be forced to state their opinion for fear of being called discriminatory or a racist. Therefore, was she totally wrong by saying she wasn't a biologist and could not answer that question? No matter how she responded to that question, she would be offending someone and could appear to be biassed towards one sex or the other. In fact, it was the smartest political move she could choose. However, was it the best choice for a judge who may have to rule on this topic one day in court?.

The days of a man having a penis and being a man, and a woman having a vagina and being a woman are gone. For the most part, I don't care what bodily organs a person has and chooses what they wish to be called. That is their right. However, it is NOT equal in the pure sense of the definition, and this is where the word is pushed to its limits.

Science tells us that men and women have practically the same set of about 20,000 genes. The only physical difference in their genetic makeup is in the sex chromosomes.

Only males have a "Y" chromosome. Although the "X" chromosome is present in both sexes, there are two copies in females and only one in males. Numerous articles have been written about why women have a genetic advantage over men and where men have a genetic advantage over women as well as a physical advantage. To avoid getting too technical, these chromosomes, which make up our genetic DNA, affect our size, strength, and other characteristics about us. Here is a GREAT article to read.


Therefore, I ask you. Is it fair to allow men, by their genetic makeup and DNA, when they have a clear advantage over women in strength, to compete in women's sports just because now they wish to call themselves a woman? This certainly does not bring the emotional factor into the equation. Again I state, that it is a person's right to choose, but when they choose, they must understand their choice may come with limitations.

Here is where it gets more sticky. When the male ends up through genetics to have many "Y" Chromosomes to the point that they have predominant female tendencies, they may choose to call themselves a woman. However, they still have the genetic characteristics of a man. Now we are no longer comparing apples to apples. At this point, this becomes bending or stretching the meaning of the words EQUAL or EQUALITY. We have all seen recent examples of this through NCAA woman's swimming. Once again, the problem is the people, NOT the words. There are also disease processes that cause this genetic imbalance. This certainly can become a more complex issue.

With all this said, at the same time, many felt that when Judge Jackson could not answer that question, that was a bad thing. What if it was a smart thing? What if she intended to make the attorneys make their case and then make a ruling. I disagree with her lax sentencing of child porn offenders. However, at the same time, I must be fair in evaluating all her answers and the reasons behind them. Keep in mind, when a person is being interviewed, or even you for that matter, by nature, people want to give the interviewer the answers they know they want to hear. With a trick question where you can not provide a right and wrong answer, meaning, you cannot please everyone, what do you do? This brings us to equal vs. fairness.