The differences between biological males and biological females explode during puberty," he began. "Girls, during puberty, develop 14% smaller hearts. Their lungs are 12% smaller... You cannot debate that. It's just a biological fact. That helps boys take in oxygen and pump blood more efficiently than girls can. That gives boys a clear edge in endurance sports like swimming, for example, cycling, rowing..."

Kennedy still wasn't done explaining the differences between boys and girls.

Girls develop a wider pelvis. That decreases the amount of force their legs exert when they're lifting, when they're kicking, when they're pedaling. That's another relative disadvantage, vis-à-vis boys or men, when you compare female athletes to their male counterparts. Now boys, in contrast, develop broader shoulders—a biological fact, folks—that allows them to make space for more upper body muscle mass and gives them a decided advantage when competing against a girl. It's hard to think—I can't think of a sport in which a higher muscle-to-fat ratio isn't helpful. The average boy will grow five inches taller than the average girl. It's just a fact. Even when men and women are the same height men have higher levels of bone density, which helps them move more forcefully and to escape more injuries.

Now, Democrats have, in the past sixteen years or so, gone all in on the idea that the physical and biological differences between males and females are irrelevant to what someone 'identifies" as, yet, as Kennedy so succinctly explains, the moment you let a male play on a women's sport's team just because he "identifies" as a woman, he's got a built-in advantage, and will steal opportunities from his female counterparts.

Will Democrats ever admit this?