By Selwyn Duke
In case you didn’t hear about it, and you might not have given that the outcome wasn’t media-narrative friendly, there was another tennis “Battle of the Sexes” yesterday. And, boy, it was not a good night for feminism and the “transgender” agenda.
Aryna Sabalenka, a Belarusian and currently the world’s number one female player, took on notorious Australian tennis bad boy Nick Kyrgios in the United Arab Emirates. Kyrgios, currently 671 in the men’s rankings, has been largely absent from competitive ATP singles tennis for more than 2½ years due to injuries and surgeries. But they were the least of his handicaps in the match.
Both players were restricted to just one serve to eliminate Krygios’s main weapon: His sound-barrier shattering first serve. The court on Sabalenka’s side was also 17 percent smaller in area—it looked as if it was cotton and accidentally washed with hot water—to compensate for the men’s greater foot speed and court coverage. (This handicap’s difficulty is underappreciated, though I won’t elaborate here. I’m a long-retired tennis professional, by the way, so I’m conversant with this topic.)
I won’t bore you with the build-up to the match, as some of what was said by both players was designed to generate interest (e.g., Sabalenka predicting “I’m going to kick his ***”). But the interest ended with the “unwoke” result: Despite looking a bit tired and out of condition, Kyrgios won 6-3, 6-3, though the handicap did make it competitive (which is the whole idea).
Tweets displaying the handicap follow.
Now, the outcome was no surprise to those who understand how sex differences influence tennis performance. The feminists and their enablers, however, are none too happy. Some say, as 10 News out of Australia puts it, that the match “has set women’s tennis back decades….” Others disagree, of course, but here’s what’s unsaid:
Maybe women’s tennis should be set back decades.
There’s a saying to the effect of: Humility is when you know what you are; humiliation is when you learn you’re not what you think you are.
What do concerns about women’s tennis being “set back” really imply? That the sport needs to maintain an illusion to maintain popularity?
I’ve long said, in fact, that this gets at a reality: It certainly doesn’t hurt women’s tennis’ cause that fans think the players are better than they are. They don’t know that, as former women’s number one Garbine Muguruza stated recently, “I think a junior [boy] would beat me even if I were ranked number one.” She’s right, too.
Now, if you consider this much ado about nothing, well, there is a deeper and rather important issue here. I’ll introduce it like this:
Years ago I read an early-1900s passage a man wrote about the difficulties he believed women would have playing tennis. He suspected that their hands would be too delicate to wield the racquets. It now sounds quaint, but he and others at the time did underestimate women’s physical abilities.
Today, though, we tend to overestimate them, partially as a result of decades of feminist propaganda and Hollywood-disgorged “girl power” entertainment. (The 120-lb, sultry silver-screen beauty tossing around 250-lb villains like rag dolls.)
If you think I exaggerate, consider that when I worked with kids, I encountered a boy of about 11 who guessed that the women’s mile record would be faster than the men’s. Another lad the same age understood that intersex athletic differences favored men, but added, “They’re very slight.”
Yeah, tell that to our women’s national soccer team, then world champions, which in 2017 lost to 14-year-old boys.
Now, some people believe this conditioning is a good thing, of course; in fact, engendering such misconceptions has been the very goal of decades of gynocentric inculcation. If people think the sexes are identical in capacity—that they are, as feminists once insisted, “the same except for the superficial physical differences”—there’s no reason to perpetuate barriers that keep women from certain professions. They then can be cops.
They can be firefighters.
They can be special-forces soldiers.
They can be anything.
They can be…the opposite sex.
After all, if males and females are “the same except for the superficial physical differences,” then all you need do is change the superficial differences and “Voila!”—you’re the opposite sex.
This is, mind you, exactly how feminism gave us so-called “transgenderism.” The feminists provided the irrational premise, and the trannies provided the quite logical corollary. So you girls and women who’ve lost sporting opportunities to MUSS (made-up sexual status, aka “transgender”) boys/men can know whom to thank for it: your feminist grandmothers—and their simping male allies.
This brings us, however, to how Sunday’s Battle of the Sexes didn’t do the MUSS agenda any favors, either. Because, after all, there’s this:
In reality, of course, the point about why MUSS men shouldn’t be in women’s sports is better made by citing 14-year-old boys beating the best female athletes. But, yes, the top woman tennis player losing to wounded-warrior Kyrgios, who’s been atrophying for 2½ years—and with her having a significant handicap no less—clarifies reality, too.
Then again, we can thank the MUSS men themselves. After all, nothing has stilled feminist chest-thumping like the object lesson of having halfway demasculinized males saying, “I am pseudo-woman, hear me roar”—and then out-roaring the female competition.
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on X (formerly Twitter), Truth Social, MeWe, Gettr, Tumblr, Instagram or Substack or log on to SelwynDuke.com.
selwynduke.com 
Let us know what you think, dear reader. We value your input!