That Board member should be fired and possibly sued. But I’ll take your assertion, and agree with you, but from the reverse angle. By asserting that gender is a “social construct”, that fairly logically leads to gender being equal to gender stereotypes. So a girl, who adheres to a male gender stereotype, will often be assumed to be a boy/man. You can’t be a tomboy anymore. There is pressure on all sides that you are actually a “boy”. As I’ve said, beyond gender dysphoria, which is a mental disorder, I don’t fully understand what it logically means to be trans. The notion of gender these days is in my mind pretty meaningless.
Yeah I don’t know. Perhaps. It’s also true that intense athletics can sometimes delay women’s puberty (I think, or maybe it just delays onset of menstrual cycle). I guess to me this is just absurd Judicial overreach. So now judges just make up the definition of boys and girls on a case by case basis? What if she had only 6 months of puberty blockers? Or 9 months? What if she had been on 1 year of puberty blockers but was still a half foot taller? I also see they viewed it as a title IX violation. I could argue the result is a title IX violation against the other girls.
It's exactly what judges should be doing: protecting people's individual rights from discriminatory government action. You can argue anything you want. Doesn't mean it's a good argument.
under what legal basis should a judge make such a decision? They are overturning state law. I don’t see how a trans person’s rights to participate in his/her preferred social construct category for sports is addressed in the constitution. There’s not consistent precendent. To argue Title IX demands it seems an extreme stretch. As to you last remark, if men participated in women’s sports, and took up women’s spots, would not that be a title IX violation? But now if you are going to say biological males can be female for Title IX purposes, there must be some definition of what qualifies as legal gender crossing and what doesn’t. Seems to me these judges just made up some criteria.
They ruled for her on Title IX grounds. (They also overturned the district court on equal protection grounds, but they remanded for resolution of factual questions.) Bostock v. Clayton County held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Courts interpret Title IX protections consistently with the Civil Right Act's. In other words, Bostock's rationale applies to Title IX too, which means it also protects against discrimination based on gender identity. The policy at issue excluded transgender girls categorically. That was sufficient to demonstrate a Title IX violation. Had the policy utilized a case-by-case approach based on competitiveness fairness, the government may have won. But by categorically excluding transgender girls, without any regard for whether they actually had a competitive advantage, the government could not win under Title IX. The decision makes plenty of sense and is consistent with precedent.
By the way, I’m no lawyer, but a weird feeling that this case gets to the USSC. It seems the perfect test case for the larger issue. Puberty blockers, state law implications, and the larger national question of gender and equity.
I doubt it. It was a narrow decision that largely rested on a statutory issue that the Court just decided back in 2020. I expect they'll look to take up a case with a broader ruling and worse facts. Although, it seems more likely they'd take up a gender-affirming care case if the Ninth Circuit strikes down the Idaho law.
OMG! When you’ve lost the Brits … NHS Declares Sex to Be Biological Fact in Landmark Shift Against Gender Ideology – The Daily Sceptic
“Aayden Gallagher, of McDaniel High School, won the Oregon State title by two-tenths of a second Oregon State Activities Association rules allow athletes to participate in a category that aligns with their gender identity without the need to provide evidence of a medical transition.” Transgender high school runner in Oregon booed after winning girls' state title
The boy’s parents are the ones who should be getting booed for allowing their son to put himself in such a precarious situation, but I understand the anger. The boy’s parents need to be put in a body bag alive with feet and arms tied. Roll them down the side of a rocky 5,000 foot cliff.
“Trans high school runner Veronica Garcia (Donovan Brown) 16, just won the Washington State Championship in the girls' 400m she finished with a time of 55.75 - a full second ahead of the first biologically female runner.” Female runners stage subtle but striking protest as trans winner who beat them by a full second in race takes gold medal to boos from crowd | Daily Mail Online “………..One mother of a female runner in the race accused Gallagher of taking spots away girls…..”you have no right to be taking away from these girls. Their emotions matter too.” Gallagher has only been competing in track and field for two months“ It's time to stop the madness of trans athletes destroying women’s sports
This whole "this hardly happens" seems to be happening more often now. I'm good with having men's, women's and open categories. Biological women only in the women's sports, if you are trans, you can be in the "open" category. Problem solved.
I'm good with having men's and women's categories, and if it is important enough to the individual to give up sports in order to transition, then that is a part of the price they will need to be willing to pay to get what they want.
I'm good with that as well, but I know the left won't accept that. I'm fine if people want to have a trans category. I won't watch but they can do it if they want.
Putting aside the lack of legality of that action, why must they make that sacrifice? There are ways to maintain competitive fairness without banning an entire group of people. Of course, that only gets harder with these idiotic gender-affirming care bans.
there is a boys and girls division in high school, specifically because boys have a significant biological advantage. This key distinction is being circumvented by a boy declaring himself a trans athlete. I believe in one of the state finals mentioned above the trans athlete had only started to race with girls for a few months. And to your point, unfortunately someone will miss out. so HS girls should shoulder the burden? We never hear it mentioned the girls are the individuals being made to make a sacrifice.
Under no circumstances should biological boys be competing against girls. It's such a non partisan issue I can't believe it's even a discussion.
If a transgender person begins her transition before puberty and uses puberty blockers and hormones, the "biological advantage" is negligible. It's certainly not greater than natural differences in athleticism between members of the same sex. So what basis is there to exclude them? In my world, we don't punish children for merely being who they are.
