The left has developed a strange blind spot when it comes to artificial substitution. In entertainment, its leading voices warn that AI threatens to replace real actors, writers, voices, and images. In women’s sports, many of those same voices insist that biological reality can be redefined without consequence.

The two issues may seem unrelated. They are not. Both turn on the danger of allowing what is artificial to replace what is real.

The left sees the problem when the artificial threatens its own institutions. It refuses to see the problem when women and girls pay the price.

Charlize Theron recently criticized Timothée Chalamet for disparaging ballet and opera after he said, “I don’t want to be working in ballet or opera or things where it’s like, ‘Hey, keep this thing alive, even though, like, no one cares about this anymore.’”

Theron not only defended ballet and opera but also warned performers to recognize the threat AI poses to their livelihoods.

“In 10 years, AI is going to be able to do Timothée’s job,” she said, “but it will not be able to replace a person on a stage dancing live.”

Theron is hardly the first performer to sound the alarm. Earlier this year, a 15-second, AI-generated fight scene featuring Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise sent shock waves through Hollywood. The clip looked polished, and its creator claimed to have produced it with a two-sentence prompt. One top screenwriter responded bluntly: “I hate to say it. It’s likely over for us.”

Hollywood has reason to worry. AI-generated images, voices, scripts, scenes, and performances could overwhelm an industry already weakened by self-inflicted creative problems and growing competition from other forms of entertainment. Actors, writers, and many others could find themselves displaced by a few keystrokes.

On this point, the left sees the threat clearly. Hollywood, one of the left’s most reliable cultural strongholds, understands what happens when an artificial substitute can perform at or above the level of the real thing.

Yet many celebrities, athletes, journalists, and activists refuse to apply the same logic to women’s sports. They insist that biological males who identify as transgender should compete against women. Many more likely stay silent because objecting would alienate their peers.

The difference in perspective is stunning.

If the left fears AI-generated images, voices, and writing because artificial creations can displace real performers, why does it deny the consequences of allowing biological males to compete against biological females?

RELATED: Jack Osbourne takes message to Capitol Hill: Celebrities need to ‘keep their mouth shut’ about politics

Kevin Winter/Getty Images

The threat to female athletes is clear. Biological males have a competitive advantage in female sports. Beyond the headline examples of individual male athletes dominating female competition, many women’s teams have competed against male teams — often much younger male teams — and lost decisively.

The advantage moves in only one direction. Biological females do not enter men’s sports and outperform males at scale. The controversy exists because biological males entering female competition changes the competitive field.

The more institutions accept that advantage, the more common it will become. That is why advocates fight so aggressively for acceptance. The goal is not merely access in a few isolated cases. The goal is normalization.

The stakes grow as athletes move up the competitive ladder. At first, the rewards involve satisfaction, recognition, and the opportunity to keep playing. But anyone who follows sports understands that money enters the picture early.

High school athletes compete for scholarships, especially at expensive private schools. College athletes compete for even more valuable scholarships. Those opportunities can shape a young person’s education, finances, and future. At the top of the ladder, professional athletes earn money for competing and often gain endorsement opportunities as well.

As the rewards grow, so does the incentive to win. Economics does not change because an athlete identifies as transgender. Without clear rules reserving female sports for biological females, more biological males will have an incentive to enter female competition.

The current debate exists because this is already happening.

The threat does not exist only at elite levels. Biological males displacing females anywhere on the ladder can affect who keeps playing, who develops, and who moves up. Girls who do not get a fair chance in grade school may never prepare for high school sports. Girls pushed aside in high school may never reach college competition. Women displaced in college may never receive professional opportunities.

Title IX was created to address exactly this problem: to ensure that women and girls have equal opportunities to compete in sports. That meant female sports, with females competing against other females.

The left once championed that principle. Now it champions the greatest threat to it.

The irony should be impossible to miss. The same cultural class that fears AI because it can imitate and displace real performers now insists women should accept biological males in their own sports. Hollywood understands substitution when the threatened class includes actors, writers, and directors. It becomes strangely confused when the threatened class includes girls and women.

Artificial creations threaten the real when they can perform at similar or superior levels. AI can. Biological males in female sports can too.

The left sees the problem when the artificial threatens its own institutions.

It refuses to see the problem when women and girls pay the price.