WaPo Puts The Nail In The Coffin On Men In Women's Sports Debate - Katie Ledecky Couldn't Hang With Teen Boys

When people debate the consequences of men competing in women’s sports, they often do so by bringing up talking points about how men have biological advantages over women. Most reasonable people conclude that this means men should not compete in women’s sports.

However, many people (especially those on the left), continue to ignore the evidence of men like Lia Thomas, or the controversy surrounding the boxing tournament in the Summer Olympics. They claim anyone who would use these examples as proof of their position are "sexist," "transphobic," or just plain dumb.

But the evidence keeps stacking up, and it’s not just in smaller-profile sports like women’s swimming or amateur boxing. Even the best female athletes of all time would lose if forced to compete against men who are much younger than them.

Katie Ledecky is the most gifted women's swimmer of all time, and she still would get smoked by teenage boys in a race. (Photo by Kristy Sparow/Getty Images)

"The Washington Post" of all places published an article yesterday using plenty of examples of times when men were allowed to compete against women, and won handily. The most convincing example they provided involved Olympic swimmer Katie Ledecky. While Ledecky has never competed against men, it’s probably a good thing that she hasn’t.

The Post compared Ledecky’s world record time in the 800m freestyle (her best race) and compared it to the times of American 15- and 16-year-old boys in the same event. You would think that Ledecky, who is the most decorated women's swimmer ever, would be much better than people nine years younger than her.

But that’s not what the evidence shows.

Ledecky’s best time in her best event would only be the 26th-fastest if she competed against a