(Daily Signal)—Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. Recently we have had two contrasting phenomena.
One is that President Donald Trump had issued an executive order suggesting or maybe threatening K-12 sports programs—and indeed, college and higher education as well—that if they allowed biological men to compete in women’s sports, then he was going to consider cutting off federal funds for that.
But at the same time he did it, the number of transgendered women—that is biological men who have transitioned to supposedly women—has increased and soared in women’s sports.
So, here on the West Coast, a trans athlete dominated the state high school track and field competitions, winning three or four main events. The same thing happened in Oregon. The same thing had happened in Washington. The same thing is happening in Minneapolis with girls baseball in the finals.
The point is it’s usually a phenomenon in blue states and in particular, blue cities. And Donald Trump’s executive orders are going the way of sanctuary cities. People are just ignoring them because they feel that he wouldn’t dare cut off federal funds because it would shut down the whole school.
But let’s get some background on this whole transgendered sports phenomenon. And maybe there’s five or six things we should keep in mind.
No. 1: We know a lot about gender dysphoria. There’s a long history of sex research about people whose psychological or hormonal makeup does not match their physical characteristics. But here’s the key: They’re very rare.
Until the transgendered—I don’t know what we would call it—phenomenon in the last 10 years, we accepted classical epidemiological studies that showed there were about five people who suffered from genuine transgendered phenomenon per 100,000 people: 0.005%. If you do the math, in a country of about 340 million people, we’re talking maybe 20,000, maybe 0.005%, or five per 100,000, maybe 10.
But you see the Pew poll and other polling ask students on campus, they ask the general public and they say there may be 20 million people. But there has been no history of that once the science of epidemiology started, which suggests it might be more of a trendy phenomenon than actual biological or scientific matter.
The second thing to remember is this is not new.
As a classicist, I can tell you that there are documented fables, myths, poems, histories about people who feel they were in the wrong bodies. The most famous is Catullus Poem 63, about a young man who performs transsexual surgery on himself in a fit of mania in honor of the god—the sexually ambivalent god—Cybele and castrates himself and is very unhappy when he wakes up out of the frenzy.
We have this novelist Petronius’ “Satyricon,” where a lot of men are cross-dressers—which is a different phenomenon—but transvestism. And we have—I think there’s a fable in “Phaedrus” about men who change into women. And we got to remember the god Hermaphroditus that comes from Hermes and Aphrodite—the combination of a male and female god. And there’s many fables about that.
So, it’s an ancient phenomenon.
Here’s another thing to remember. Does anybody know—and I’m asking a genuine question—does anybody know of a female athlete who decided that she was in the wrong body and she transitioned to maleness, manliness, and she won a major event? I know of none.
So, when we talk about transgendered sports, we’re talking about one phenomenon. We’re talking about men.
And if anybody—let me ask a corollary question as I pause here. Does anybody know a famous, well-known, but especially spectacular male athlete that transitioned? I don’t. It’s usually men that were not very successful, at least in the elite of their division or their field, who transition to feminism. And then they become very, very successful.
And this is very important because we are told that once you transition, you are a genuine new sex. That your prior muscular skeleton frame doesn’t really matter, given your hormonal treatment. But it does. Because when we’re talking about transgenderism in sports, we’re not talking about women who become men. And because they don’t succeed in that sport, that reminds us that they’re not fully men. Or if they were, they could just declare their new gender and compete competitively.
And by the same token, 100% of what the controversy is about are men who have bigger frames, more muscles who transition and dominate women’s sports in a way they did not dominate male sports. In other words, they’re taking.
Final thoughts: It has so many political ramifications. One is the party of the left, the Democratic Party, has embraced this 20-80 political issue—20% to 30% tops support this, of the American people. And yet, they’re going down the road of a very unpopular development and supporting transgendered women who are decimating and destroying female sports.
The second thing is it’s counterintuitive. The Left was supposed to be for gender parity. And that meant—that was defined by giving money and attention and resources to women so that their sports would be equivalent to male sports. And now we’re kind of reactionary. We flipped it upside down, where males go around the back, take over women’s sports, and essentially, destroy it. And yet that is popular among many on the left.
And then there’s a final political corollary. We were also told by some radical feminists—especially as it applies to women in combat units—that women could do anything that men could do. A small percentage can, physically. But the vast majority—in terms of muscularity, size, frame, endurance, lung capacity—cannot.
So it kind of, in a weird way, also affects that issue that women cannot really compete with men on the battlefield—at least in tasks that require physicality and muscularity.
Let’s just end the discussion with a brief summation.
Transgenderism is an old phenomenon. It was very, very rare, a very small percentage of the population. Sometime around 2005 to 2015, it exploded as a civil rights issue. And the numbers have been vastly inflated. It’s been trendy among young people on campus. But it has almost destroyed female sports in a way that’s ironic, tragically ironic, because the Left once was a protector and the champion of female sports and now it’s de facto, it’s destroyer.
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.