Bill to ban trans athletes from women’s sports blocked in US Senate

I woukld also interpret section 4 as permitting males to train/practice with the agreement of the girls/women.

It is quite common for elite or potentially elite women and girls to play against males in order to improve their game, especially in sports like tennis and cricket. Banning all such participation would not be helpful.

There are lots of puny boys and they don't normally get to play with the girls. And the idea that trans girls are weakened to the point of being unable to compete with boys is simply tra propaganda. These boys retain plenty of male advantage. Lia Thomas is a better example than some theoretical weakened, puny boy.

I've no problem with mixed activities which would include the male 'weedy kid' and anybody else. The legislation is not about PE for all schoolchildren, it is specifically about not allowing

a person whose sex is male to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls.

A 'person whose sex is male' should not be allowed to join in with girls just because he's weedy - if it's the girls' team, it's the girls' team, full stop.

Sorry, male 'weedy kid', your female classmates are not your support animals. And if you 'a male identifying as female but with no intention of being on the school sports team or any sports capability or ambition at all,' I think the girls are better off without you, if you're that un-motivated about sport you're not bringing much to the group, are you?

What message is his presence giving to the keen young sportswomen striving to do their best and be the best, when weedy kid is just here because he's too weedy for the guys' team but the girls' team? that'll do nicely.

The suggestion that it's OK as long as it's not elite level is like the ECB abandoning girls in grassroots cricket by only applying the single-sex rule at higher levels, as if grassroots sports are not where the elite women athletes and sportswomen come from.

There's mixed sports which are designated as such, which weedy kid is welcome to join in, and there's women's and girls' sports, which he isn't.

I didn't say only Democrats get pharma lobby funding. I said Democrats get lots of pharma lobby funding. Which they do.

There's also a non-trivial chance that JB Pritzker gets to be their next presidential candidate.

@MarieDeGournay clarifying this would be a matter for the debate when the Bill is being discussed, but it seems to be as @CapabilityBrownsHaHa describes, or if a male identifying as female but with no intention of being on the school sports team or any sports capability or ambition at all can be allowed to do Netball with the girls rather than Football with the boys during the compulsory PE slot, so long as the safety and dignity of the girls isn't being compromised. The male in question should certainly have a curriculum which includes active exercise and shouldn't be expected to just not have any PE lessons. It is reasonable for the legislation to differentiate between a programme of activity that is for all children to promote their health and fitness, which is usually divided into boys and girls post-puberty, where it might in some cases not do any harm for the weedy kid who would be utterly pulverised on the football field to be utterly pulverised on the netball court instead, vs a programme of Elite/Competitve sporting achievement where it is absolutely unfair for any male to take any opportunity that is designated for females.

I think the point here is that while Executive Orders have to be followed, they can simply be replaced with another Executive Order saying the opposite when the other side gets in power. If you turn them into a law, then there's a long and complicated process to go through to get the law thrown out.

So, why are some Executive Orders turned into laws and some not? It's because it can be a complicated process, as last night's vote showed, and it would consume too much time and effort for them all to be turned into law. In the case of this particular law, I think part of the calculation to choose it for "convsersion" was that either it would go through straightforwardly or, if the Democrats sabotaged it, that would provide great PR to the Republicans who could then present it as the Democrats still being "for they/them and not for you" after their defeat involving this very point, and that they weren't interested in protecting women's rights in general, only ones they favoured.

The Republicans didn't bring this to the Senate earlier when they might have done. It has been noticed that the Democrats sabotaged the bill on the first day of business in the Senate of Women's History Month, which is interesting symbolism.

Where did you get your data from that says only Democrats get so much funding from big pharma? According to Open Secrets which is a great data aggregator of govt lobbying, drug companies have historically lobbied both parties hard and relatively equally.

In 2024 drug companies spent over $16m lobbying both parties, around $1m more of which went to Republicans than Democrats.

It would have effectively codified into law a Feb. 5 executive order signed by President Trump to ban transgender student-athletes from participating on girls’ and women’s sports teams. ...

This a US system question - what does this mean? Have I misunderstood the power of an executive order? Have his other EOs gone through votes? Do they all get voted on? Or was this EO "for show" because for whatever reason this issue is something he can't unilaterally override?

On the section 4 bit, I was thinking (possibly naively) that it might apply to situations where a school or club is too small to have a separate male team, so they would let a couple of boys / men practice / try it out with the women. But they will never compete for places in a team or to win. E.g. a young boy wanting to have a go at rhythmic gymnastics because it looks like fun.

4 Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit a recipient from permitting males to train or practice with an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls...

This is puzzling. So forget 'no males in female sports' as a matter of principle, now males ARE allowed in female sports
...so long as no female is deprived of a roster spot on a team or sport, opportunity to participate in a practice or competition, scholarship, admission to an educational institution, or any other benefit that accompanies participating in the athletic program or activity.

How is that going to be adjudicated, and policed? How is it possible to even know whether or not a girl has been discouraged from participating in the sporting activity because of the presence of males, trans or not? What about the fact that the greater physical strength of males is dangerous in many sports - not just obvious contact ones like boxing but volleyball, soccer/football etc.

It looks like article 4 takes away from all women and girls the right to single sex sports as a right and as a matter of principle. Instead, they are going to have to prove - somehow - that they should be on the team instead, that they are missing out on valuable practice time, that they are not going to reach the level needed to win a scholarship..

How do you go about doing that? Why should you be forced to do that? Won't any girl who attempts to assert her rights be told to #bekind, don't be horrible - or possibly 'don't be a bigot' - to this lovely guy who just wants to play on the girls' team..

It seems to me that it completely undermines the other 3 articles, or am I misreading it somehow - I'm operating on only one cuppa so far this morning so maybe I'm wrong

According to AI: What readers are saying:
The comments predominantly express opposition to allowing transgender women to compete in women's sports, arguing that it undermines Title IX and women's rights. Many commenters criticize Democrats for supporting policies that they believe disadvantage biological women, suggesting that this stance could harm the party politically. A few comments highlight the small number of transgender athletes and question the focus on this issue, suggesting it is a distraction from more pressing matters. Overall, the sentiment leans towards supporting the Trump administration's executive order on this issue.

I think this is the survey I mentioned upthread. Correction: I said 69% of Democrat voters but it was 67%.

It was an NYT/IPSOS survey. Scroll to page 14 for Q 32:
'Q32. 'Thinking about transgender female athletes — meaning athletes who were male at birth but who currently identify as female do you think they should or should not be allowed to compete in women's sports?'
67% of Democrat or Democrat leaning voters replied that they should not.
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/f548560f100205ef/e656ddda-full.pdf
I've not read all the other questions but Q33 is also interesting although not relevant to this thread.

Democrat politicians appear to be completely out of step with their own supporters on this issue. Why is this and how long can they get away with it?

As someone ignorant of the finer workings of the US system - is there a chance they can try again later on? Will this stop anything happening as a result of the EO?

I cannot believe that they are doubling down on this. Thankfully they still have time to come to their senses before the next elections.

But will they?

Ah, sorry, I’m relatively new to sharing WaPo articles, I definitely clicked the link to “gift” the article.

Anyway, the top rated comment is as follows:

Trump is right on this one. Shame on the Democrats who are undermining Title IX. While this sort of thing won’t swing many votes to Republicans, it will make former Democrats avoid voting for a party that has gone off the rails.

The media always report this issue as 'transgender people' in women's sport because they know that saying 'males in women's sport' makes it sound like it's a completely standard non-controversial position.

Which it is, but it sounds more interesting and outrage inducing if we pretend this is about discrimination against a minority group.

Males are not a minority group and they have their own sports (indeed, often more highly valued and with more resources than the women's sports).

That took me to a paywall so I found an archived version that someone had done:

https://archive.ph/bhURs

Even the readers of the Washington Post, who are generally as anti-Trump as you can get, support the bill and are scathing of the democrats on this position.

link with sharetoken: wapo.st/3Xn4O64

It is clear that if male people are excluded from women's single-sex spaces and activities, this puts Ukraine in more danger.

I'm disappointed but not surprised. TRSOH will not and cannot deviate from the Bundle of Good Beliefs, else they will be cast out from The Righteous.

And (to make a more serious point) the problem with Trump being so utterly horrendously batshit about literally everything [except, to us on TWSOH, this singular issue] is that most people will dig their heels in and redouble their opposition to the Orange Maniac and all he stands for in their eyes.

Honestly this is really disappointing and must now, surely, go against public opinion.

The optics of males in women's sport was never a good look for the TRAS but it, seemingly, doesn't stop the Democrats.

I'm surprised that this has been opposed.

I often feel that big donors should be mentioned on the captions when senators are speaking.

"Bernie Sanders is brought to you by Pfizer"

Ok it looks like it's just really bad ignorant reporting. The Bill itself doesn't even use the word Transgender.

The additional wording suggested to be added to Title IX rights (the establishment of which requires that women and girls have equal access to sporting opportunities) is

1. It shall be a violation of {the original Title IX legislation} for a recipient of Federal financial assistance who operates, sponsors, or facilitates athletic programs or activities to permit a person whose sex is male to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls.
2. For the purposes of this subsection, sex shall be recognized based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.
3. For the purposes of this subsection, the term ‘athletic programs and activities’ includes, but is not limited to, all programs or activities that are provided conditional upon participation with any athletic team.
4. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit a recipient from permitting males to train or practice with an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls so long as no female is deprived of a roster spot on a team or sport, opportunity to participate in a practice or competition, scholarship, admission to an educational institution, or any other benefit that accompanies participating in the athletic program or activity.

I think (4) is particularly good. It means there's nothing stopping a school or other organisation from providing some sporting/althletic opportunities that MTF transpeople can participate in so long as no women/girls are being deprived of opportunities thereby.

(d) (1) It shall be a violation of subsection (a) for a recipient of Federal financial assistance who operates, sponsors, or facilitates athletic programs or activities to permit a person whose sex is male to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls.

(2) For the purposes of this subsection, sex shall be recognized based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/28/text

I don’t doubt that.

And I didn’t realise the Democrats were so generously funded by the big drug companies, who of course get customers for life when people try to change sex. What a disgrace.