Posted on

Transgender (male) athletes should not participate in female sports

By John Burbridge

The president of the United States is granted the latitude to make these things called “executive orders”.

Some stick. Others inadvertently emphasize the importance of a separate legislative branch acting in good faith.

President Joe Biden has not been shy while wielding such authority since taking office as he has already issued 37 executive orders as of this writing.

The most recent is EO 14021 headed as: Guaranteeing an Environment Free from Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, including Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity.

Section One of this dictum proclaims …

It is the policy of my Administration that all students should be guaranteed an educational environment free from discrimination on the basis of sex, including discrimination in the form of sexual harassment, which encompasses sexual violence, and including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. For students attending schools and other educational institutions that receive Federal financial assistance, this guarantee is codified, in part, in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance.

The push-back has been immediate, and for proponents of the EO, it’s coming from the usual suspects — firetruck red states led by conservative governors and lawmakers.

As of this writing — might as well state March 22, 5 p.m.-ish — there have been more than 20 bills proposed with some already signed into state law banning biological males from competing in girls and women’s school sports regardless of their gender identity.

The push-back of the push-back has been heavy-handed. An executive director from the American Civil Liberties Union called it a collective example of lawmakers legislating “based on hate and fear.”

I’m going to enter this fray by simply stating that transgender (male) athletes shouldn’t be allowed to compete in female sports excluding coed. And I write this knowing that I’ll probably catch more hell for the parentheses (male) than for the statement itself.

Not expecting this will help me much, but I’m a supporter of the LGBTQ movement which has empowered and liberated legions of marginalized and muted individuals.

For a society to tap greater share of its potential, it should encourage more people to stand tall, proudly display and utilize their gifts, and enthusiastically contribute to the good fight without being hampered by discrimination and ostracization.

Many of LGBTQ’s most ardent haters have proven to be just that — “haters” as well as small people who look for ways to cut the heads off people in their proximity to make themselves look taller. Orientation ridicule and the threat of exposure — of “outing” someone — are the cutlery they often use.

Now, this weaponry has been enfeebled in the face of such a galvanized organization with the hold-out perpetrating boors more likely to be publicly outed and ostracized themselves.

But championing the proposed rights of transgender biological males to compete with females is not an act condusive to empowerment. And though supporters of such a farce have cited compliance to Title IX as also noted in the aforementioned executive order, it’s actually in violation of the federal law as easily seen through a non-convoluted lens.

I firmly believe that high school sports and extracurricular activities should not be the primary means to attain scholarships. Rather, they should help students become more well-rounded, responsible and community connected, which in turn may open some doors.

But athletic prowess tends to be a factor when it comes to doling out full-rides. After all, successful sport programs are aggressively sought as they attract talent, prestige and financial support. So it wouldn’t be farfetched to imagine a women’s sport head coach whose job security is directly linked to winning offering a scholarship to a biological male athlete over a female athlete.

As we have seen lately with college programs “moving on” while discontinuing employment with coaches who didn’t get them to the “dance,” there’s a lot of emphasis on winning.

Now ask me if I approve of female athletes competing with male athletes.

Answer: Most Certainly.

While covering female sports, I have seen some exceptional athletes who — if they decided and were allowed to compete against males — could give the boys a run for their money. In general, I’m referring to some outstanding female throwers in track and field, battle-tested female soccer players who grew up playing youth league soccer with boys, and several skillful and rather fierce female wrestlers.

At the professional level, females have competed with and against males in bowling, golf and even football.

There shouldn’t be a glass ceiling for female athletes who seek to challenge themselves beyond their comfort zone if their comfort zone is continual dominance over female competition.

So does coming out against biological male athletes competing against females yet supporting females athletes in their quests to compete against males make me hypocritical?

No. (Excuse the audacity of passing verdict on myself). But when it comes to being grossly inconsistent on the issue, I’ll plead guilty as charged.

The bills passed or in the process of being passed banning biological males from competing with females appear to be on a collision course with a courtroom. Maybe the Supreme Court will get involved.

It would be an uphill grind for the defendants who would likely have to negotiate a bastardized interpretation of Title IX as well as the social justified cries for consistency.

But at times, consistency can be the hobgoblin of common sense. And allowing biological males to compete with females in the same vein of allowing some females to compete with males is not an example of common sense.

Social Share