Transgender athletes whose biological sex assigned at birth was male would be barred from competing on girls or women’s sports teams at federally supported schools and colleges under legislation pushed through Thursday by House Republicans checking off another high-profile item on their social agenda.
The bill approved by a 219-203 party-line vote is unlikely to advance further because the Democratic-led Senate will not support it and the White House said President Joe Biden would veto it.
Supporters said the legislation, which would put violators at risk of losing taxpayer dollars, is necessary to ensure competitive fairness. They framed the vote as supporting female athletes disadvantaged by having to compete against those whose gender identify [sic] does not match their sex assigned at birth.
Opponents criticized the bill as ostracizing an already vulnerable group merely for political gain.
The House action comes as at least 20 other states have imposed similar limits on trans athletes at the K-12 or collegiate level.
The bill would amend landmark civil rights legislation, known as Title IX, passed more than 50 years ago. It would prohibit recipients of federal money from permitting a person “whose sex is male” to participate in programs designated for women or girls. The bill defines sex as “based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.”
Title IX forbids discrimination based on sex for any educational institution receiving federal financial assistance. Even in 1972, when Title IX was passed into law, it was complicated, which is why Title IX carried a slew of detailed exceptions. But the drafters of the original Title IX law could not have foreseen that something so obvious as sex had to be defined. Title IX simply reads,
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, except that:
It goes on at length detailing the nine exceptions. It does not define “sex.” Who would have thought that was necessary? In their wisdom, lawmakers obviously couldn’t foresee a day when American culture would sink to the cognitive level that would require sex to be explicitly defined.
But today, absurdly, “sex” needs to be explicitly defined. That is what the GOP legislation—H.R.734 - Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2023— attempts to do. It defines sex as “an individual's reproductive biology and genetics at birth.”
Second, note the blatant Leftist/Woke bias in the article. Freking uses the idiotic term “sex assigned at birth,” implying that gender is merely an arbitrary assertion rather than an identification made strictly on the facts of reality—specifically, the easily observable and clearly differentiated sex organs of the newborn child. When my second child was born, the doctor’s first observation was that it was a boy. Then, after full birth, he said “oops, it’s a girl.” His “assignment” was the facts. The facts left him no choice: We had another girl.
Sex as an assignment? Silly? Yes. But this reality denial behind the absurd notion that sex is an “assignment” is worse than one might think at first glance. Wokism, an outgrowth of postmodernism, rejects objective reality, adhering instead to the “primacy of consciousness” branch of philosophy. Primacy of Consciousness is the premise that reality is a creation of the mind, which means that reality is whatever one wishes it to be. This is opposed to the Enlightenment premise, the “Primacy of Existence,” which holds that reality exists independent of any consciousness, that facts are facts, and that reality cannot be bent or molded to fit anyone’s wishes, beliefs, or desires. All of science is based on the Primacy of Existence. The opposite Primacy of Consciousness is the witch doctor’s view. Freking’s Woke “sex assigned at birth” nonsense is the voice of the witch doctor—literally primitivism infecting civilization like a deadly virus.
Think of what this means when gender identity invades education. Proper cognitive training is based on the primacy of existence. When you teach children that something as obvious as gender is a matter of personal choice, you are going down a dangerous road. You are blurring in the developing young child’s mind the crucial distinction between what is real and what is only in the child’s mind. That is not education. That is education destruction.
So, where does this leave the suddenly pervasive “transgender” political phenomenon? I believe there is something real to it. Scientific knowledge advances. It’s entirely possible that a person can be born mixed—for example, with the reproductive organs or physique of one sex but maybe the hormones or psychology of the other. Birth defects happen. Associated Press writers Sam Metz and Amancai Biraben report on the unfortunate experience of two young people, both minors, caught in such a gender dysphoria, and they and their parents’ heart-wrenching quest for medical treatment to deal with their issues amid political drives to ban transgender medical care for minors. I don’t doubt that there are legitimate concerns, both pro and con, about this treatment. But should the state get involved? Or is this a medical matter to be decided by the kid, his/her doctor, and the parents? Since children do not have the knowledge, experience, or legal right to decide, should children be subjected to gender alterations, or is this child abuse?
Jennifer Finney Boylan argues in To understand biological sex, look at the brain, not the body that gender is not merely a matter of biology. There is research suggesting that transgender brains are “something distinct.” Maybe. But the occasional birth defect doesn’t negate the fact that there are only two genders, identified by observable biological facts, not mind reading.
I suspect that most transgenders are people following a fad, trying to “fit in,” make a political statement, maybe just be “cool.” But whether a transgender person has some natural abnormality or is someone kowtowing to their whimsy, I couldn’t care less. As a radical for individualism, I believe every person deserves respect as a person, with the same rights to his/her beliefs as anyone. My view can be summed up by paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson: “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are two genders, twenty genders, or no genders. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Where I draw the line is when a person seeks to force their beliefs or personal circumstances, real or imagined, on others—when it breaks a leg or picks a pocket, or is an excuse to cheat. Cheating is what the male is attempting to do when he bullies his way into women’s sports competition. People can self-identify all they want. But in the end, they should accept who and/or what they are. Male genitals indicate a male, and female genitals indicate a female. That’s reality. The world doesn’t revolve around any one individual, or group of individuals. You can prattle on about “vulnerable groups” or any other Woke group fantasies. But in the end, we are all individuals, independent of any group identity, and each of us deserves respect from others as individuals of reason and free will. Fantasy play does not entitle you to escape basic civility and common courtesy. You don’t get to change rules to fit your subjective personal identity. Yes, rules can and, on occasion, should, be changed as new knowledge or injustices are discovered. But changes must be made based on facts and fairness, not political correctness.
In the end, each person is who they are—and a self-respecting person does just that, accepts who they are. But others are who they are, too, and you must accept that. No one gets to force their values on others. No one gets to bend rational societal norms willy-nilly. To quote Jefferson again, this time literally, with my emphasis: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." This includes respecting rational rules, like observing rules restricting women’s sports to women only.
This is my first statement on so-called transgenderism. It may not be my last. My opinions are subject to refinement. No doubt, the knee-jerk reaction of some will be to label me a “transphobe.” But Woke dupes aside, this is a matter for rational debate. I am a person of reason. My starting point is the observable facts. On this issue, I’m open to new knowledge, new facts, new perspectives, and others’ opinions.
As of now, let me summarize. You can no more choose your birth gender than you can choose your skin color or ethnic heritage.Transgenders, whatever their causes or circumstances, self-identified or real, are individuals with the same rights, privileges, moral responsibilities, and limits as anyone. No more, no less. They deserve respect, but also the responsibility to give equal respect to others. They live by the same laws and rules, and the same rights to work for change within the system as anyone. No more, no less.
As to two of the related hot button issues of the day, transgenders who are biological males should not be allowed to compete in female sports, for obvious reasons. But that is a matter to be decided by the private sports entities, not the law. (Title IX complicates the issue, because federal funding gives the state a power it shouldn’t have.) The state should not be dictating medical care for kids with transgender problems, provided it is not part of a wider child neglect issue. This is a medical matter to be decided by the kid, his or her doctor, and, in normal circumstances, the parents.
Every individual must accept who and what they are, and recognize that personal circumstances do not add to or take away one’s moral or legal rights and responsibility. Equity, it’s contemporary Woke redefining notwithstanding *, gives transgenders the right to fair and impartial recognition only within the rules, not outside the rules, such as placing biological males into women’s sports. Being arbitrarily slotted into some “historically marginalized” grouping, or some other such collectivist Woke category, is no excuse to imagine the world owes you some special treatment. We are all, after all, autonomous individuals, not group appendages. There is no right to unfettered inclusiveness, the contemporary Woke redefining of “inclusive” notwithstanding **. The principles of the Founding of this country are, as always, the basic frame of reference—the moral equality of each of us to self-govern via the inalienable individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of one’s goals, values, and happiness, so long as you’re not picking pockets or breaking legs.
* [“Equity”, such as applies to DEI, has come to mean Egalitarianism, rather than it’s neutral meaning fair and impartial.]
** [”Inclusive,” the “I” in DEI, has come to mean the destruction of all rational standards, whereby anyone should be included in anything, regardless of context.]
Related Reading:
Biased Reporting, Hypocritical ‘Educators’
Ayn Rand on Primacy of Existence vs. Primacy of Consciousness
Bad Schools and What to Do about Them, with Andrew Bernstein, interview with Jon Hersey for The Objective Standard
Beneath the Title IX Controversy
Links of Interest
To understand biological sex, look at the brain, not the body By Jennifer Finney Boylan
For transgender kids, a frantic rush for treatment amid bans By SAM METZ and AMANCAI BIRABEN for AP
980 New York Times Contributors Want To Sacrifice Free Inquiry to Ideology [Contains good explanation of the transgender phenomenon.]
Prager U.: If You Can Choose Your Gender, Can You Choose Your Race? [0:00]
