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

[IwantToRetire]

Legislation to prevent transgender athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports failed to advance in the Senate on Monday after all Democrats voted against it.

The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act failed to clear an initial procedural hurdle on a 51-45 vote. It needed 60 votes to advance, which would have required at least seven Democrats to vote with all Republicans to move it. The bill cleared the House in January on an almost entirely party-line vote.

The measure, sponsored by Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), sought to amend Title IX, the federal civil rights law against sex discrimination, to prohibit schools from allowing transgender students to compete in athletic events “designated for women or girls.” It defines sex as “based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.”

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. ...

Article continues at https://thehill.com/homenews/lgbtq/5174190-transgender-athletes-bill-fails/

The Dems one job during this Trump term was to show that they can walk back the worst of their batshittery and be in better shape for 2028.

Apparently they've not got that memo.

I'm not up to speed with US politics but I've been following this and, from where I'm sitting, it looked like it could have been a real opportunity for the Democrats to show the world they'd learned something from their election defeat.

That article says that ' 79 percent of Americans believe trans athletes should not be allowed to participate in women’s athletics.' I've read (though can't find the source right now) that 69% of Democrat voters agree. It's their politicians who appear to be out of step.

Can any US voters explain it? Are there any signs of the Democrats coming to their senses or are they stuck forever in double down mode?

Is it a really badly worded Bill, or is the reporting about it just ignorant? I am very much GC but I wouldn't vote for a Bill that treated "Transgender students" as a single category, does the Bill not actually say that the people banned from female sports are the male people? Because there's lots of transgender female people who should obviously be fully able to participate in the female sports category if they aren't taking testosterone.

I believe the bill was called the 'Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act'

I've been following Kara Dansky and the Democratic Women's Declaration who worked hard to try and persuade Democrats in the Senate to support it. They never talked about the wording being problematic.

Tommy Tuberville has been pushing this for years. He's not an uncontroversial senator and you may disagree with everything else he says. Put that aside. Before politics, he was a legendary college football coach, so on sports he knows exactly what he's talking about.

Significant that there was even a procedural vote. Coach Tuberville told Megyn Kelly a few months ago that Senate GOP leadership wouldn't bring this to the floor because they were certain they didn't have the 60 votes needed to proceed. If that was true, the whole point of bringing it to the floor was to get the Dems on record defending a really unpopular position.

I assume the Dems have two reasons for being intransigent. One is ID politics and the other is that Democrat senators get massive donations from Big Pharma.

And maybe the third reason is that they hate Trump more than they support women and girls?

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.

(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

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.

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

"Bernie Sanders is brought to you by Pfizer"

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'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.

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

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

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

https://archive.ph/bhURs

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).

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.

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?

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 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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.