Talk

Advanced search

Save Women's Sports - Bill to Protect Females Introduced in the Senate

(47 Posts)
OvaHere Wed 23-Sep-20 00:40:37

savewomenssports.com/save-womens-sports-blog/f/breaking-news-bill-to-protect-females-introduced-in-the-senate

BREAKING NEWS: Bill to Protect Females Introduced in the Senate

Five Senators introduced the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act.
Washington, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senators Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) introduced the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act to make it a violation of Title IX for a school that receives federal education funds to permit a biological male to participate in a sports program designated for women and girls.

Senator Kelly Loeffler is a former athlete and the co-owner of a WNBA team, the Atlanta Dream. In a press release she stated, "Title IX established a fair and equal chance for women and girls to compete, and sports should be no exception,” said Senator Loeffler.“As someone who learned invaluable life lessons and built confidence playing sports throughout my life, I’m proud to lead this legislation to ensure girls of all ages can enjoy those same opportunities. This commonsense bill protects women and girls by safeguarding fairness and leveling the athletic field that Title IX guarantees.”

“Men and women are biologically different,” said Senator Lee.“That’s just a scientific fact. For the safety of female athletes and for the integrity of women’s sports, we must honor those differences on a fair field of competition.”

“Maintaining the integrity of healthy competition is crucial for the future of women and girls in sports,” said Senator Blackburn.“Schools and universities that allow males to participate in women’s sports defeats the purpose of Title IX.”

“When Title IX was passed and signed into law, the intent was to ensure equal access for men and women in education, including sports,” said Senator Lankford. “Permitting biological males to participate in women’s sports rejects the very spirit of Title IX, which was intended to create an equal playing field for women and girls. This bill upholds and reiterates congressional intent and promotes actual equality for women and girls in sports by respecting the dignity of biological female athletes across the nation.”

“At their best, sports teach our kids fundamental lessons about fairness and integrity in a safe environment—but there’s nothing fair, honest or safe about allowing men to compete in sports leagues designed solely for women,” said Senator Cotton. “This bill will preserve the sports leagues and teams that allow women and girls to excel as athletes. And it will defend the commonsense principle that women’s sports are for women. It’s tragic but unsurprising that such a defense is necessary.”

Save Women's Sports, a non-partisan coalition, applauds the Senators in their effort to champion females. This should not be a partisan or religious issue. Our coalition has varying views outside of this topic but we are all able to agree on one thing, males should not compete in female sports.

We do not have to agree on everything, to come together to Save Women's Sports.

OP’s posts: |
OvaHere Wed 23-Sep-20 00:42:00

It's very telling and wholly disappointing that not a single Democrat has supported this bill.

OP’s posts: |
FWRLurker Wed 23-Sep-20 00:50:48

Unfortunately this issue is currently a white hot wedge issue In the us. Any dem supporting Anything that could be interpreted as “anti trans” will be primaried on the next go around.

Also I am interested in the text of the bill. It may say “individuals must compete with their natal sex” which in my opinion is Often wrong in the case of trans men - specific trans men who have taken testosterone should be able to be able to compete in the open / men’s if desired.

Most Us repub efforts so far have also worked to force trans men out of men’s sport. That’s because to them this stuff is more about keeping women and men in their proper place than it is about women’s rights per se.

wellbehavedwomen Wed 23-Sep-20 00:51:36

OvaHere

It's very telling and wholly disappointing that not a single Democrat has supported this bill.

I really, really can't comprehend how any woman calling herself a feminist can oppose this. You're talking about males without any drugs or surgery at all, competing for sports scholarships, in some cases. How in the world can that be regarded as okay? It's so blatantly sexist, unfair and exclusionary.

It's astonishing, that Trump's Republicans are better defenders of women's rights in this area than the Democrats. How the hell did we get here, and so fast? It's lunacy.

wellbehavedwomen Wed 23-Sep-20 00:54:17

FWRLurker

Unfortunately this issue is currently a white hot wedge issue In the us. Any dem supporting Anything that could be interpreted as “anti trans” will be primaried on the next go around.

Also I am interested in the text of the bill. It may say “individuals must compete with their natal sex” which in my opinion is Often wrong in the case of trans men - specific trans men who have taken testosterone should be able to be able to compete in the open / men’s if desired.

Most Us repub efforts so far have also worked to force trans men out of men’s sport. That’s because to them this stuff is more about keeping women and men in their proper place than it is about women’s rights per se.

Well, that's depressing, if predictable. I'll hope not but yes, I can see your point.

(Surely that means trans men on T can't compete at all. It would be doping in sporting terms, no?)

OvaHere Wed 23-Sep-20 01:04:25

Most Us repub efforts so far have also worked to force trans men out of men’s sport. That’s because to them this stuff is more about keeping women and men in their proper place than it is about women’s rights per se.

That's probably true but transmen in men's contact sport is still an issue. As is the case with rugby here I don't think it's fair to put the men in a position where there is a huge increased risk they will seriously injure or even kill an opponent. Obviously all contact sport has inherent risks but I think that's a risk that can't be ignored.

I think the vast majority of sports are in sex based boxes for good reasons.

OP’s posts: |
OvaHere Wed 23-Sep-20 01:08:54

To add, clearly transmen on T are a problem for female sports so that also needs to be addressed, probably as an issue of doping.

OP’s posts: |
PerkingFaintly Wed 23-Sep-20 01:11:21

Oh that's clever.

You do have to admire the timing of that.

Republicans may not be interested in supporting women's rights – indeed are busy appointing a new member of the Supreme Court in the hope of rolling them back right now.

But they are very interested in using women's rights as political PR.

Bringing this bill forward right now will enable them to do two things:

1) Distract from the Supreme appointment and portray themselves as the champions of women – in an area they don't really care about. Trans activism has been an ideal tool for men who want to retain dominance, because it sucks up women's political energies and keeps us from the areas we were working on before trans activism blew up – and which might actually impact on manly men.

2) It will act as a shibboleth for the Democrats. Whatever answer they give will be wrong for some of their supporters, so it's absolutely perfect to suppress the Dem vote. Possibly also to pump the Trump vote, but suppression will be the main objective.

You have to hand it to them, that's very well-timed indeed.

wellbehavedwomen Wed 23-Sep-20 01:15:04

The bill is here.

wellbehavedwomen Wed 23-Sep-20 01:18:25

@PerkingFaintly I'm afraid I agree. Over here, we don't have any issue as huge as the Supreme Court appointment now Brexit is settled, but over there, you'd have to vote Democrat, surely? There's no sensible alternative, especially since this appointment will determine the survival of Roe.

turnitonagain Wed 23-Sep-20 01:21:38

PerkingFaintly

Oh that's clever.

You do have to admire the timing of that.

Republicans may not be interested in supporting women's rights – indeed are busy appointing a new member of the Supreme Court in the hope of rolling them back right now.

But they are very interested in using women's rights as political PR.

Bringing this bill forward right now will enable them to do two things:

1) Distract from the Supreme appointment and portray themselves as the champions of women – in an area they don't really care about. Trans activism has been an ideal tool for men who want to retain dominance, because it sucks up women's political energies and keeps us from the areas we were working on before trans activism blew up – and which might actually impact on manly men.

2) It will act as a shibboleth for the Democrats. Whatever answer they give will be wrong for some of their supporters, so it's absolutely perfect to suppress the Dem vote. Possibly also to pump the Trump vote, but suppression will be the main objective.

You have to hand it to them, that's very well-timed indeed.

Correct. And also distract from Kelly Loeffler’s unethical stock trading to benefit from the COVID crisis and Tom Cotton’s NYTimes oped where he proposed shooting Americans expressing their first amendment rights to free speech and assembly.

OvaHere Wed 23-Sep-20 01:22:19

I can believe the timing of it plays into other agendas as nothing tends to be coincidental this close to an election but I also think Senator Kelly Loeffler probably does genuinely care about the issue as a former athlete herself and owner of a WNBA team.

I don't know about the motives of the others but fairness in sports seem to be the one thing there's almost universal agreement on in this debate outside of the people who are deliberating pretending not to understand for wider political purposes.

OP’s posts: |
turnitonagain Wed 23-Sep-20 01:29:31

Sen Loeffler probably does care on some level but it’s interesting she’s a WNBA owner which is a very gay friendly league due to many high profile lesbian players, but she routinely backs anti-gay legislation. A few major players/former players like Lisa Leslie are openly against her ownership.

PerkingFaintly Wed 23-Sep-20 01:36:09

I've always expected that sport would be the rock on which the wilder parts of the trans agenda would founder. It's why I've been so confident those extremes would burn themselves out.

Loeffler though... The US Senate is very closely balanced:
Repub 53, Dem 45, Independent 2.

IIUC, it would only take 4 defections or abstentions for the Senate not to be able to push through the new Supreme.

And IIUC, Loeffler has voted in favour of appointing a new Supreme under Trump. So Loeffler may genuinely care about an issue. But it may not be entirely the same issue I care about. (Not that I'm pretending that what I care about should weigh aught with an American.)

Delphinium20 Wed 23-Sep-20 03:08:30

Democrats are absolutely short-sighted on this issue. Most people who play sports care deeply about fairness in sport. This will blow up if Republicans are shown to defend women's scholarships, sports, awards, etc. Currently, the Democrats have those moderate women (the proverbial soccer, suburban mom with daughters in sports) fearful of losing reproductive rights, but if they start to see the Republicans as defenders of women's rights, we LOSE women voters.

Also, there's a stereotype of the young, leftist academic who loves the arts, music, etc. who likely knows next to nothing about athletic competitions and thinks allowing transwomen into women's sports is just about being inclusive, but are clueless as to what a BIG DEAL sports are in the U.S.

turnitonagain Wed 23-Sep-20 03:18:52

So a quick Google tells me that the NCAA which is the body that oversees university sports in the US bars male-to-female trans athletes unless they have taken testosterone blockers for at least one year.

generalssports.com/sports/2019/9/10/information-Inside-Athletics-sahandbook-Transgender.aspx

So what is the point of this bill exactly? It’s just red meat to the base.

Delphinium20 Wed 23-Sep-20 04:00:06

@turnitonagain Testosterone blockers don't equalize male bodies to female bodies in sports. Men/boys still have larger lungs, musculoskeletal advantages, height, strength, etc. and no men/boys can lower their testosterone to equal women/girl's.

turnitonagain Wed 23-Sep-20 04:31:41

This rule has been in place since 2011 so if it was the case that female athletes have been disadvantaged by it there would be evidence of it by now.

I do think the sports issue is a serious one as a sporty woman with sporty DDs. But I’m deeply distrustful of this bill due to the people backing it and would be wary of assuming Democrats won’t support it simply because of their identity politics issues.

BrandineDelRoy Wed 23-Sep-20 05:19:47

turnitonagain

So a quick Google tells me that the NCAA which is the body that oversees university sports in the US bars male-to-female trans athletes unless they have taken testosterone blockers for at least one year.

https://generalssports.com/sports/2019/9/10/information-Inside-Athletics-sahandbook-Transgender.aspx

So what is the point of this bill exactly? It’s just red meat to the base.


Taking a year of hormones doesn't change one's pelvic bones.

FWRLurker Wed 23-Sep-20 05:23:18

This rule has been in place since 2011 so if it was the case that female athletes have been disadvantaged by it there would be evidence of it by now.

There have been some cases in the last year or two, like that male to female college runner In the us, can’t remember the name atm. Very good runner in male division in HS transitioned with 1 year hormones and now destroying female competition in college.

Fact is until very recently few trans women had the hubris to think they had a right to try this. Because everyone Knows it is unfair. Now everyone is cheerleading them on - to hell with those T—F bigots.

Also very few were out already at college age (until very recently nearly all trans women transitioned in middle age).

FWRLurker Wed 23-Sep-20 05:33:57

‘‘(d)(1) It shall be a violation of subsection (a) for
6 a recipient of Federal funds who operates, sponsors, or
7 facilitates athletic programs or activities to permit a per-
8 son whose sex is male to participate in an athletic program
9 or activity that is designated for women or girls.
10 ‘‘(2) For purposes of this subsection, sex shall be rec-
11 ognized based solely on a person’s reproductive biology
12 and genetics at birth.’’

This is actually good - says nothing about where trans men should compete, implying they are still welcome to either female or open divisions, subject to the usual Doping restrictions.

Timing is awful though - turns it into nothing more than a political football. It’s going nowhere

turnitonagain Wed 23-Sep-20 05:54:00

Fact is until very recently few trans women had the hubris to think they had a right to try this. Because everyone Knows it is unfair. Now everyone is cheerleading them on - to hell with those T—F bigots.

It is unfair to women.

I know it’s not the same situation it Caster Semenya started losing when she had her testosterone reduced didn’t she?

FWRLurker Wed 23-Sep-20 06:16:35

Caster is intersex so it’s not the same situation - I think it makes sense she would win less than prior. Indeed I’d be surprised if a trans woman on blockers didn’t have reduced performance than her prior self. But the important comparison isn’t to the prior (For trans woman, male) self, the important comparison is to women, who have never had the benefit of Testosterone or male puberty. No one is saying testosterone Does nothing. The point is that simply reducing circulating testosterone For 1 year cannot even the playing field physically.

For obvious examples Consider traits like height, Arm span, and hip angle. These traits are different due to the action of T during puberty and are not in any way reversed by hormones because they are skeletal traits. You’re stuck with what puberty gave you. Meanwhile traits like Upper body muscle mass Do decrease slightly in trans women on T blockers, but Not to natal female levels.

NecessaryScene1 Wed 23-Sep-20 06:19:25

A male taking testosterone will lose some performance. This no more makes him eligible for female sports than it makes him eligible for under-14 sports or paralympic sports.

FireUnderTheHand Wed 23-Sep-20 06:39:08

OvaHere

It's very telling and wholly disappointing that not a single Democrat has supported this bill.

Also wholly unsurprising.

Funny that, Republicans being the party that is introducing bills to protect sex-based provisions/protections.

Dems (representatives) are for their pockets just like Reps (representatives), difference is Dems have gotten so snuggly with TQ+++ that Reps can do what seems to the silent majority like the most benign unnecessary thing to support women (females, girls/women) and they come out like lesser evil to anyone that is paying attention beyond MSM. And to Reps the party is protecting a valued asset - female humans - they can't let all that unpaid labor get identified away.

In contrast, Biden's plan is as follows in relation to Title IX (from his campaign site) "Ensure young LGBTQ+ people are supported and protected in our schools and college campuses by: [g]uaranteeing transgender students have access to facilities based on their gender identity. On his first day in office, Biden will reinstate the Obama-Biden guidance revoked by the Trump-Pence Administration, which will restore transgender students’ access to sports, bathrooms, and locker rooms in accordance with their gender identity. He will direct his Department of Education to vigorously enforce and investigate violations of transgender students’ civil rights." Fortunately it takes both the House and the Senate to make a bill a law... weird that Biden after serving just short of 40yrs in the Senate and VP for 8yrs doesn't know (or forgot) how our legislative and executive branches work. Sure he can impose an executive order but Congress can pass a bill that blocks it (like the bill in the article posted by OP which would block the sports portion of Title IX degradation if passed) and if Biden vetoed the bill they can override it, additionally, SCOTUS can deem the order to be unconstitutional and it goes 'bye bye' as it would then be void.

In short, currently the Reps are building bridges with women (female kind) while the Dems are actively burning established bridges in an attempt to elevate TW above all bio women in policy. As a woman I can't get onboard with either of the POTUS two-party candidates as I have to weigh my rights threatened by Reps against endorsing the Dems destruction of sex-based rights by effectively making sex subordinate to gender identity.

Blows my fucking mind that neither Trump or Biden seem to grasp that we have three separate branches of government constructed by our constitution and that (1) separation of powers therein is a clear division of power between the three, (2) checks and balances to safeguard against dictatorship/authoritarianism/etc, and (3) limited government which attempts to ensure that appointed/elected officials are subject to the same laws/constitution/indictment that all of us non-politicians are.

Join the discussion

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet

Already have a Mumsnet account? Log in