I know how some folks feel about trans women and girls (strangely the concern hardly ever touches trans men and boys) competing in sports, but here is something to consider. In spite of all of the preconceived notions fueling opposition to trans female athletes, maybe there is simply no concrete evidence that trans females have an unfair advantage over cis female athletes.
From Metro Weekly:
A federal judge has blocked Arizona from enforcing a law prohibiting transgender athletes from competing in female-designated sports. U.S. District Judge Jennifer Zipps, of the District of Arizona, granted a preliminary injunction blocking the state from enforcing the Save Women’s Sports Act. The law prohibits transgender female athletes from competing in sports matching their gender identity and allows cisgender students to sue for damages if they believe they have lost out on an athletic opportunity after being forced to compete against a transgender athlete.The ban on transgender athletes was challenged by a 15-year-old volleyball player, referred to as Megan Roe, and an 11-year-old, referred to as Jane Doe, who wishes to play girls’ soccer, basketball and cross-country. Because neither has yet undergone male puberty, and both are on puberty blockers, they argue they don’t have a physical or physiological advantage and should be allowed to compete on teams matching their gender identity.In her order granting the injunction, Zipps found that the law is “overly broad” because it bans transgender female athletes, including those at the elementary school level, from girls’ sports teams, despite the lack of evidence proving that pre-pubertal athletes hold some physiological or unfair competitive advantage over other children based solely on their assigned sex at birth. She also noted that the ban treats transgender boys and transgender girls differently, noting that transgender boys — whom the state and proponents of the ban refer to as “biological girls” — are permitted to play on male-designated teams, despite the alleged physical risks that they would presumably face by competing against “biological male” athletes.Zipps also noted that, under the law, even cisgender female athletes can be investigated and forced to submit to genetic testing to “prove” their biological sex.
1 comment:
The full 35-page ruling is a worthwhile read. The lawyers for the girls did an amazing job exhaustively documenting the evidence proving that pre-pubertal girls, and girls on puberty blockers, pose no threat to girls in sports.
The state of AZ is trying to fight the girls' participation in sports with arguments that pre-pubertal boys actually do hold physiological advantages over girls. (They even cited miniscule, questionable differences in body fat of newborn girls vs. boys.) The judge ultimately found the state's evidence and experts lacking credibility.
Worth noting of the plaintiffs and their schools: Both girls have been playing on girls teams for years. Both continued to train with their teams in the past year when the AZ law has been in effect; they were just barred from playing in games. Both of their schools for this fall are prepared to welcome them back to the teams without controversy. The only reason for the lawsuit is that the schools were barred by the 2022 law from from doing what they already know is right and just for the girls.
Post a Comment