EO on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation

Female Athletes Ask Court to Allow Idaho Law Banning Males From Women’s Sports to Go Into Effect
https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/05...g-males-from-womens-sports-to-go-into-effect/

ADF.jpg


College track and cross-country athlete Madison Kenyon has been forced to compete against a biological male on five occasions. She lost every time.

“Losing unfairly to someone who has natural advantages is frustrating and unmotivating,” said Kenyon, a sophomore at Idaho State University, at a press conference after a court hearing on the legality of Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act.

On Monday, the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal nonprofit, argued in defense of the state’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The legal group represents Kenyon and fellow Idaho State University student athlete Mary Kate Marshall.

Idaho Gov. Brad Little signed the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act into law March 30, 2020. The legislation recognizes the biological difference between men and women, and establishes that “athletic teams or sports designated for females, women, or girls shall not be open to students of the male sex.”

The American Civil Liberties Union challenged the Idaho law before it went into effect, claiming it is unconstitutional.

The ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of transgender Boise State University student Lindsay Hecox and an anonymous female athlete who claims concerns that she will be forced to prove she is female under the legislation due to her masculine build.

In August 2020, U.S. District Court Judge David Nye of Idaho issued a preliminary injunction on the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, temporarily halting its enforcement, and in turn allowing biological males who “identify” as women to compete on women’s sports teams.

Monday’s hearing of the case Hecox v. Little before the 9th Circuit Court sought to determine whether or not Idaho can legally prevent transgender individuals from competing on women’s sports teams.

“Our arguments are based on well-established science about the differences between male bodies and female bodies,” Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Roger Brooks said in a statement.

“The Fairness in Women’s Sports Act is not just constitutional; it’s necessary to protect the rights of women and girls. Both the law and simple fairness make the answer clear: Idaho’s law should be reinstated and allowed to stand,” Brooks said.

“I’m just a 20-year-old girl, and I just want to be able to compete,” Hecox said, according to NPR, adding that “it was just so blatantly wrong for politicians to legislate this.”

ACLU attorney Chase Strangio represented Hecox at Monday’s hearing and argued that the participation of transgender athletes in female sports is not at odds with the rights of women and girls.

“Transgender individuals represent less than half of 1%” of the population, Strangio said, contending that “there is simply no way, based on numbers alone, that there can be substantial displacement” of female athletes.

The ACLU attorney added that across America there have been just four transgender athletes “who have had any success at any level … [and] none of those athletes are currently competing.”

Hecox v. Little is not the first case of its kind to be tried in federal court. In March, the Alliance Defending Freedom represented female track athletes Chelsea Mitchell, Selina Soule, Alanna Smith, and Ashley Nicoletti before the U.S. District Court for Connecticut. The case, Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools, sought to prevent biological males from competing in female sports in the state of Connecticut.

Ultimately, the district judge dismissed the Connecticut case because the two transgender athletes who competed against the four female athletes have now graduated and no longer pose a hurdle to the female athletes in track competitions.

The decision in the Connecticut case does raise a question of whether or not the 9th Circuit might view the Idaho case in a similar light. Hecox is currently on a break from school and has not provided the court with a declaration of intent to return to Boise State University, but Strangio said Hecox does plan to return to school and try out for the track team.

At the press conference after the hearing, The Daily Signal asked the Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer whether he’s concerned that the 9th Circuit would declare the Idaho case moot as the district court in Connecticut had done in the case of Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools.

“I do have that concern, and one of the judges raised that during the argument,” Brooks said, but explained why the court should rule on the Idaho case.

Our view is that this is a situation that is live and is going to be an ongoing challenge facing girls and women in Idaho education—high school and college. So, we are hopeful that the appeals court will not consider this dispute to be moot. We think it is right to be resolved and important to be resolved.


Fourteen states, medical professionals, female athletes, and feminist groups have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act.

The states of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia argue in their brief that the act “does not draw distinctions based on transgender status, and in fact, it treats an athlete’s gender identity as irrelevant.”

“Nor did Idaho’s legislature enact the statute for the invidious purpose of discriminating based on transgender status. Rather, its purpose is to ensure equal opportunities for women in athletics,” the brief states.

Idaho athlete Kenyon said she “joined this lawsuit to protect [the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act] because I knew it was an opportunity to be a voice for girls I compete with and the future generations of girls who will fall in love with sports.”

“We are asking the court to see us the same way as the lawmakers in Idaho did—as women who deserve a fair chance to compete in the sport that we love,” she said.

Yet another reason why the Idaho congressional/Senate delegation continues to introduce legislation to have Idaho removed from the the Nineth Circus. Or rather to have Idaho and some other states from another circuit which WILL NOT include California.
 
That is one of the few pleasures we get to have posting online... it does not happen often enough...


Yeah but no one seems to find this joke as funny as me..

A transgender woman named Hecox.... you cannot make this up...
 
I was the fastest girl in Connecticut. But transgender athletes made it an unfair fight.
When I was forced to race male bodies on the track, colleges didn’t see the fastest female in Connecticut. They saw a second- or third-place runner.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...n-sports-track-connecticut-column/5149532001/

It’s February 2020. I’m crouched at the starting line of the high school girls’ 55-meter indoor race. This should be one of the best days of my life. I’m running in the state championship, and I’m ranked the fastest high school femalei n the 55-meter dash in the state. I should be feeling confident. I should know that I have a strong shot at winning.

Instead, all I can think about is how all my training, everything I’ve done to maximize my performance, might not be enough, simply because there’s a runner on the line with an enormous physical advantage: a male body.

I won that race, and I'm grateful. But time after time, I have lost. I’ve lost four women’s state championship titles, two all-New England awards, and numerous other spots on the podium to male runners. I was bumped to third place in the 55-meter dash in 2019, behind two male runners. With every loss, it gets harder and harder to try again.

That’s a devastating experience. It tells me that I’m not good enough; that my body isn’t good enough; and that no matter how hard I work, I am unlikely to succeed, because I’m a woman.

Don't eliminate women's sports
That experience is why three of my fellow female athletes and I filed a lawsuit last year with Alliance Defending Freedom against the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC): because girls and women shouldn’t be stripped of their right to fair competition.

The CIAC allows biological males to compete in girls’ and women’s sports. As a result, two males began racing in girls’ track in 2017. In the 2017, 2018, and 2019 seasons alone, these males took 15 women’s state track championship titles (titles held in 2016 by nine different girls) and more than 85 opportunities to participate in higher level competitions that belonged to female track athletes.

That’s because males have massive physical advantages. Their bodies are simply bigger and stronger on average than female bodies. It’s obvious to every single girl on the track.

But Connecticut officials are determined to ignore the obvious. And unfortunately, a federal district court recently dismissed our case. The court’s decision to do so tells women and girls that their feelings and opportunities don’t matter, and that they can’t expect anyone to stand up for their dignity and their rights.

That’s wrong. And it chips away at women’s confidence and our belief in our own abilities.

It’s happened to me over and over. Every time I walk up to the starting line, I try to tell myself that I can overcome the unfair odds — I can win, even though the race is stacked against me.

Hurting female athletes' futures
But besides the psychological toll of experiencing unfair losses over and over, the CIAC’s policy has more tangible harms for women. It robs girls of the chance to race in front of college scouts who show up for elite metes, and to compete for the scholarships and opportunities that come with college recruitment. I’ll never know how my own college recruitment was impacted by losing those four state championship titles to a male. When colleges looked at my record, they didn’t see the fastest girl in Connecticut. They saw a second- or third-place runner.

And it’s not just happening to me. My friend and fellow plaintiff Selina Soule was bumped from qualifying for the state championship 55-meter final and an opportunity to qualify for the New England championship by a male runner in 2019. Meanwhile, Alanna Smith, an incredibly talented female athlete, was the second-place female runner in the 200-meter at the New England Regional Championships, but was dropped to third behind a male competitor.

c768a5fc-e0f3-4544-84ba-9a49d966b926-Capture1.JPG

Selina Soule (left) and Alanna Smith (right), who compete within the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference, in 2019.

It’s discouraging that the federal district court has decided that these experiences — these lost opportunities — simply don’t matter.

But I’m not beaten yet. And neither are my fellow female athletes.

Through our ADF attorneys, my fellow athletes and I are appealing the federal district court’s ruling. We’re taking our case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, where we are going to ask once again for the court to recognize our right to fair competition — a right that Title IX has promised to girls and women for 50 years. And we’re fighting not just for ourselves, but for all female athletes.

So as we prepare for this next step in the case, I’m settling into my starting blocks again, but for a different kind of race. And this time, I’m confident that we can win.

Chelsea Mitchell is an award-winning athlete from Canton High School in Connecticut. She is running track at the collegiate level.
 
I was the fastest girl in Connecticut. But transgender athletes made it an unfair fight.
When I was forced to race male bodies on the track, colleges didn’t see the fastest female in Connecticut. They saw a second- or third-place runner.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...n-sports-track-connecticut-column/5149532001/

It’s February 2020. I’m crouched at the starting line of the high school girls’ 55-meter indoor race. This should be one of the best days of my life. I’m running in the state championship, and I’m ranked the fastest high school femalei n the 55-meter dash in the state. I should be feeling confident. I should know that I have a strong shot at winning.

Instead, all I can think about is how all my training, everything I’ve done to maximize my performance, might not be enough, simply because there’s a runner on the line with an enormous physical advantage: a male body.

I won that race, and I'm grateful. But time after time, I have lost. I’ve lost four women’s state championship titles, two all-New England awards, and numerous other spots on the podium to male runners. I was bumped to third place in the 55-meter dash in 2019, behind two male runners. With every loss, it gets harder and harder to try again.

That’s a devastating experience. It tells me that I’m not good enough; that my body isn’t good enough; and that no matter how hard I work, I am unlikely to succeed, because I’m a woman.

Don't eliminate women's sports
That experience is why three of my fellow female athletes and I filed a lawsuit last year with Alliance Defending Freedom against the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC): because girls and women shouldn’t be stripped of their right to fair competition.

The CIAC allows biological males to compete in girls’ and women’s sports. As a result, two males began racing in girls’ track in 2017. In the 2017, 2018, and 2019 seasons alone, these males took 15 women’s state track championship titles (titles held in 2016 by nine different girls) and more than 85 opportunities to participate in higher level competitions that belonged to female track athletes.

That’s because males have massive physical advantages. Their bodies are simply bigger and stronger on average than female bodies. It’s obvious to every single girl on the track.

But Connecticut officials are determined to ignore the obvious. And unfortunately, a federal district court recently dismissed our case. The court’s decision to do so tells women and girls that their feelings and opportunities don’t matter, and that they can’t expect anyone to stand up for their dignity and their rights.

That’s wrong. And it chips away at women’s confidence and our belief in our own abilities.

It’s happened to me over and over. Every time I walk up to the starting line, I try to tell myself that I can overcome the unfair odds — I can win, even though the race is stacked against me.

Hurting female athletes' futures
But besides the psychological toll of experiencing unfair losses over and over, the CIAC’s policy has more tangible harms for women. It robs girls of the chance to race in front of college scouts who show up for elite metes, and to compete for the scholarships and opportunities that come with college recruitment. I’ll never know how my own college recruitment was impacted by losing those four state championship titles to a male. When colleges looked at my record, they didn’t see the fastest girl in Connecticut. They saw a second- or third-place runner.

And it’s not just happening to me. My friend and fellow plaintiff Selina Soule was bumped from qualifying for the state championship 55-meter final and an opportunity to qualify for the New England championship by a male runner in 2019. Meanwhile, Alanna Smith, an incredibly talented female athlete, was the second-place female runner in the 200-meter at the New England Regional Championships, but was dropped to third behind a male competitor.

c768a5fc-e0f3-4544-84ba-9a49d966b926-Capture1.JPG

Selina Soule (left) and Alanna Smith (right), who compete within the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference, in 2019.

It’s discouraging that the federal district court has decided that these experiences — these lost opportunities — simply don’t matter.

But I’m not beaten yet. And neither are my fellow female athletes.

Through our ADF attorneys, my fellow athletes and I are appealing the federal district court’s ruling. We’re taking our case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, where we are going to ask once again for the court to recognize our right to fair competition — a right that Title IX has promised to girls and women for 50 years. And we’re fighting not just for ourselves, but for all female athletes.

So as we prepare for this next step in the case, I’m settling into my starting blocks again, but for a different kind of race. And this time, I’m confident that we can win.

Chelsea Mitchell is an award-winning athlete from Canton High School in Connecticut. She is running track at the collegiate level.

USA Today deletes 'hurtful language' from op-ed by female HS sprinter angry she's lost to biological males. What apparently was so 'hurtful'? She called them 'males.'
https://www.theblaze.com/news/usa-today-transgender-hurtful-language

USA Today is feeling the backlash after deleting what it termed "hurtful language" from an op-ed by a female high school sprinter upset that's she's been forced to race against — and has lost to — biological males who identify as female. In short, transgender females.

And what apparently was so "hurtful"?

Whatever else she may have written, Chelsea Mitchell referred to her aforementioned opponents as "male" or "males" — and USA Today later cut those references from her piece.

See, in WokeWorld, that's known as "misgendering" — and it's a no-no.

What are the details?
Townhall said Mitchell's USA Today op-ed first ran over the weekend — but by Tuesday the paper added an editor's note at the top: "This column has been updated to reflect USA TODAY's standards and style guidelines. We regret that hurtful language was used."

Alliance Defending Freedom — which is representing Mitchell and other female Connecticut track athletes in a lawsuit over having to compete against transgender females — stated that USA Today editors "without notice to Chelsea, changed the word 'male' to 'transgender' throughout her piece."

Indeed, the Internet Archive reveals that the May 23 version of Mitchell's USA Today op-ed contains 11 references to "male" and "males" — but they all were either deleted outright or replaced with the word "transgender" in the piece's present form.

Here's one example from Mitchell's original piece: "Instead, all I can think about is how all my training, everything I've done to maximize my performance, might not be enough, simply because there's a runner on the line with an enormous physical advantage: a male body."

Catch those last three words? Well, they're gone now.

The new sentence uses the word "transgender" before "runner" — and the words "a male body" have vanished: "Instead, all I can think about is how all my training, everything I've done to maximize my performance, might not be enough, simply because there's a transgender runner on the line with an enormous physical advantage."

What's been the reaction?
As you might expect, folks got angry at USA Today. Christiana Holcomb of ADF certainly gave the paper what for:



Author Abigail Shrier — who knows something about the subject (and getting deleted for her views) — weighed in as well:




Anything else?
The below video is one example of what Mitchell and other female athletes have been up against. It's from the 2018 Connecticut girls' 100-meter dash. Mitchell is the third runner from the left. The runners to her left and right — Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood — are transgender females.

The results? Mitchell came in fourth. Miller and Yearwood came in first and second, respectively. In fact, Miller set a meet record that day. But had Miller and Yearwood not been allowed to race against biological females, one might conclude that Mitchell would have finished higher that fourth.

(More at above url including video)
 
Back
Top