Title IX of the Education Amendment required the creation of girls’ sports teams to level the playing field for women. From these new teams, scholarships were created and millions of young women were granted access to billions of dollars in financial assistance. In the name of trans-athlete rights, the Progressive agenda appears to be hell-bent on turning back all progress made for women’s rights. When questioned, Progressive judges, silence opposition with gag orders and prevent sensible discussion. In today’s episode, we’ll explore the murky waters of the trans-athlete debate and see how this experiment is bad for America.
Without question, this is a difficult topic, but in my opinion a simple conclusion–which I’ll save for later. That said, my conclusion may likely get my Twitter Account banned or at the very least earn me thousands of hate messages.
Today’s episode is a very sensitive topic, but it really is only difficult to talk about because thirty years ago Progressives defined Political Correctness as something to be controlled by the ruling class. As I’ve presented in more than a few previous episodes, political correctness is a weapon used against conservatives to make discussing topics uncomfortable. Once the playing field has been abandoned by enough “normal” people, then the Progressives can score their victory and impose their will on America. Climate change, race relations, wages, and even junior school sports.
Remember the big Progressive movement of the ‘80s to make all students feel like winners? Yea, remember the notion that everyone should get a participation trophy so no one would feel left out? Hard to believe, but it appears that was the opening salvo for LGBTQ Rights. Sound too crazy to believe?
Before I dive too deep into today’s topic on Transgender Athletes, I would like to give a synopsis of TITLE IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
TITLE IX of the Education Amendments was signed by President Nixon in June of 1972 to become a law. The main purpose of Title IX is to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program or activity that is federally funded. TITLE IX is not leverage for women to obtain more benefits than men, but rather it is applicable for both sexes to get benefits and promote equality in Schools; especially high schools and colleges.
The law requires educational institutions with federal assistance to maintain policies, practices and programs that do not discriminate in base of sex. Females and males are expected to receive fair and equal treatment in every aspect of public schooling such as scholarships, financial aid, employment assistance, housing, health and insurance benefits, sexual harassment, athletics, among other things (Sadker 2004, website).
Besides ensuring women had equal access to higher education, the law also required fairness in sports. Since it was obvious men and women couldn’t compete fairly against one another, the law required schools to create a women’s sports program for every male sports program. This was a 1 to 1 program adoption program. If the men had wrestling, then women needed to have wrestling. Etc. When that law passed, whoa nelly, the cries of too high of a cost to implement could be heard from coast to coast. Universities and high schools all across America were requesting a variance to conform with the new law. It took a while, but eventually, school capitulated, and women’s sports took a major leap forward on the world stage.
Enter the Progressives hell-bent on changing America to something more akin to their liking, TITLE IX became a rallying cry for the LGBTQ activists as they cried foul! Over what you might ask? Where is the foul in making sure men and women have equal access to competitive sports? Simple, the men who identify as women and the women who identify as men must also be accommodated.
Need a more detailed explanation? Check this out.
In an article published on TheNation.com by Dave Zirin, the title reads: In Connecticut, Do Transgender Women Have the Right to Play? The author goes on to write, “A shadowy, right-wing legal outfit is using sports as a cudgel to smash trans rights.” This approach in the world of sales is called a presumptive close. In the article, Dave wrote, “Not only does the lawsuit wrongly claim that trans girls are not covered by Title IX, but the plaintiffs go so far as to suggest that protecting trans people from discrimination violates the Title IX rights of others.”
Reading through TITLE IX, not once is Gender-Identity even mentioned, however, the term “sex” is used 174 times. Notice how the author of this article just jumps past the distinction and instead spends time labeling the opposition. The author even suggests Republicans would be against TITLE IX in the first place. Dave wrote, “They want TITLE IX–a law they would undoubtedly have opposed when it was passed in 1972–to be used as a cudgel to deny trans people their rights.” Let me remind you, my listener, that TITLE IX was signed by President Richard Nixon, a Republican. Without Republican support in Congress, the bill would not have been passed. The author again is using a presumptive based sales approach to try and enter into evidence a fact that is not real.
Why would the author do this, you might ask? Simple, to build an evidence chain for something that does not exist that can then be used by other media outlets. Case and point, NBC News picked up on Dave’s article and expanded on it by writing “…three cisgender girls filed the lawsuit…” Cisgender? Not a new term, but in short, it means…girl. Looking up the term cisgender on transathlete.com, we get:
“cisgender–an adjective often used to refer to someone whose gender identity is consistent with their assigned to them at birth.” –note that is exactly how it is written on transathlete.com, far be it from me to make grammar suggestions.
This got me to thinking…what the heck does gender mean? Good news, transathlete.com has that definition:
“Gender — The complex relationship between physical traits and one’s internal sense of self as male, female, both or neither, as well as one’s outward presentations and behaviors related to that perception. Biological sex and gender are different; gender is not inherently connected to one’s physical anatomy.”
In fairness, I looked up the term gender on merriam-webster.com just to make sure I understood the meaning of the word:
1a. “a subclass within a grammatical class (such as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (such as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms”
2a. “the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex”
Are you beginning to see how this all works? When I was a kid, gender meant male or female. Example, at webstersdictionary1828.com, the definition of gender was:
“A sex, male or female.”
Now gender is a behavior. It trumps freedom of speech…no really. OK, I need to set this one up a little, because it has to do with a case in Canada. In Canada their constitution works a little differently, the government can suppress speech it deems to be hate speech, obscenity, or defamation. Rather than Freedom of Speech, the Canadian system reads Freedom of Expression. Ok, here is some expression being suppressed; “Judge orders father of transgender B.C. teen not to give further interviews.” The judge also ordered a video the father made be removed from the internet. In the spirit of full discloser, I have not read any of the father’s words nor have I seen the video. From my vantage point, there is never a reason to violate one’s right to freedom of speech.
I can already hear the cries! But wait a minute Ed, that was Canada, that can not happen here! For the record, allow me to note:
“Judge imposes full gag order on Roger Stone” -2/21/19
“Roger Stone barred from using social media as judge tightens gag order.” -7/16/19
No way someone in America could be prevented from exercising their freedom of speech. The left will argue the Roger Stone case is a farse, a red herring used to connect two dots. And that I am just as guilty as Dave from TheNation.com for planting news seeds. Really, how about this case?
“In a ruling on Thursday, Judge Kim Cooks in the 255th District Court in Dallas said that the parents should have joint custody and that the state could not require Mr. Younger to treat the child as a girl. She also forbade either parent from speaking to the news media and ordered Mr. Younger to shut down his site.”
My position is not to try the case from Texas in this podcast, that would not be fair, no it is to point out that even in America, a judge can rule against freedom of speech in cases of transgender law. This is, in my opinion, the same Progressive Political Correctness agenda played out in a legal setting. They’ve gone well past making it uncomfortable for conservatives to speak in public and are now using activist judges and the law to squelch speech.
In the argument from the LGBTQ activists, the science behind gender is settled. Since boys can be girls and girls can be boys, then allowing them to compete in sports as their current gender identity is a Right.
The Transgender Law & Policy Institute’s document, Guidelines for Creating Policies for Transgender Children in Recreational Sports, says,
“All young people should have the opportunity to play recreational sports and have their personal dignity respected. Transgender young people are no different. In fact, because transgender young people often must overcome significant stigma and challenges, it would be particularly harmful to exclude them from the significant physical, mental and social benefits that young people gain by playing recreational sports. The impact of such discrimination can be severe and can cause lifelong harm. In contrast, permitting transgender children and youth to participate in recreational sports in their affirmed gender can provide an enormous boost to their self-confidence and self-esteem and provide them with positive experiences that will help them in all other areas of their lives.”
Done. Finished. Conversation over. Now shut up and obey.
Judge, may I ask a question? If girls (oops, I mean cisgender women) are forced to compete against other boys (oops, transgender athletes) and physical strength, increased lung capacity, and body muscle mass of the transgender athlete gives them an unfair advantage; My question is, who receives the college scholarship for the top athletes? Cisgender women or transgender athletes? Is this not just another form of sex discrimination against biological women when it comes to obtaining higher education? Didn’t TITLE IX get created in large part to make sure women could not be shut out of higher education?
OK, Political Correctness aside. Fact is humans born with male parts have a genetic makeup that gives an athletic advantage over women. Boys really do have an increased lung capacity, higher muscle to fat body mass, and increased upper body strength. Does that mean women can not beat men? No, some women can beat some men, but the average boy has an athletic advantage over most women and thus is THE reason why TITLE IX was passed.
Let’s use a little logic here. Per statista.com, roughly 20% of the nation’s population competes in sports (20.8 percent of boys and 17.8 percent of girls to be exact.) In a survey completed by the Williams Institute, roughly 0.6% of US adults identify as transgender. Worldwide, the percentage of the population who identifies as trans is somewhere between 1.2 to 6.8 percent. Using Wikipedia (obviously the conservative keepers of all knowledge) and a little math, we can calculate how many trans athletes there are in America. Brace yourself, Ed is on the math train. Here we go:
The population of America (per Wikipedia): 313,914,039
Percentage of population who competes in sports 20%
Total number of people who compete in sports 62,782,808
Percentage of population who identify as trans 0.58%
Number of people in America who identify as trans 1,820,702
Estimated number of trans athletes 364,140
In an unrelated topic…Per a Washington Post article published by Michelle Singletary on Oct 16, 2018, $6.1 billion in college scholarships was award to 1.58 million recipients in 2017. Since roughly half of the population are women, it is fair to argue $3 billion of the scholarships went to women. A percentage of that money went for sports scholarships–what percentage, I don’t know, but one could argue a good percentage. But, just for argument sake, let’s assume it was a low number–say $500 million. Per the Washington Post article, the average scholarship awarded is valued at $3,852. Divide $500 million by 3,852 and we find that 129,803 women (in my assumption) received a sports scholarship. A sports scholarship is based on performance on the playing field, right? If boys can outperform girls, then how many of the 129,803 cisgender women will be excluded from higher education because they could not get a scholarship?
Dave from TheNation.com used a presumptive sales technique to try and get you, the reader, to accept his fact out of hand. The fact he is planting is Title IX being applied to Trans Athlete does not violate the rights of women. Allow me to reminded you what Dave wrote: “Not only does the lawsuit wrongly claim that trans girls are not covered by Title IX, but the plaintiffs go so far as to suggest that protecting trans people from discrimination violates the Title IX rights of others.” The lawsuit Dave is trying to make fun of is making the exact same argument I just presented. Boys have an athletic advantage over girls and allowing boys to compete against girls has a financial impact on girl’s abilities to obtain scholarships to go towards paying for a higher education.
Is a participation trophy worth limiting women’s right to higher education? Is a political experiment worth the damage to women’s rights? How many transgender court cases are going to impose gag orders before we realize the goal of Progressives is to stop the discussion. Are American’s not entitled to talk about women’s rights anymore? I thought Democrats championed women’s rights. There are over 156 million women in America and their rights are being trampled in favor of the rights of 363 thousand transgender athletes.
What side is the media on with this issue? The Progressive side, they don’t challenge the courts’ gag orders. They are not calling for congressional hearings or the impeachment of activist judges. Nope, they are chanting for trans-rights over the rights of women. Consequences be dammed.
Before I wrap this up, we need to explore the idea of sex discrimination as it pertained to gender identity. TITLE IX does not address gender-identity discrimination, it only uses the term sex. As you can imagine, the term sex and gender became a source of confusion.
Countless court cases across America have been filed in the name of sex discrimination. In those cases, the term sex and gender got used interchangeably. Sex discrimination and gender discrimination came to mean the same thing.
In the workplace, discrimination against an individual because of gender identity, including transgender status, or because of sexual orientation is discrimination covered under Title VII of the employment protection act. EEOC interprets and enforces Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination as forbidding any employment discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. These protections apply regardless of any contrary state or local laws.
OK, there is the proof, it is illegal in the workplace, so what is the difference with sports, why can’t we use the same rules? Well, here’s why.
Inclusion in sports is based on performance whereas inclusion in work is qualification based. Allow me a moment to unpack this idea.
When applying for a spot on the track and field team, the person who can run the fastest gets the sport on the team. In business, it is not about being able to crunch the numbers faster than the next applicant, it is can you crunch the numbers. That example will be a little difficult for some, but I started with it on purpose to emphasize the next one. One can argue the person who can crunch the numbers faster would be preferable and discrimination would not be considered. But case law proves otherwise because if applicant 1 was a woman and applicant 2 was a man, then a lawsuit will be filed. Why, because for decades it was assumed men were better at math than women. Hundreds of court cases just like the one above have been successfully litigated on behalf of the plaintiff.
However, in the case of track and field, we get to use speed as a qualifier. A trans athlete out runs the cisgender athletes and get’s the spot on the team. Now boys have representation in all of the boy’s sports and at least one athlete in girl’s sports. How is that NOT a violation of TITLE IX?
Gender-Identity Discrimination does not equate to Sex or Gender Discrimination and thus by allowing transgender students to compete in the athletic event of their identified gender, the playing field unfair to women and violates the intent of Title IX Education Amendment. A more logical approach would be to extend TITLE IX to require schools to create a transgender team, just the same as TITLE IX required the creation of women’s teams. TITLE IX said that if a school had a boys team, they had to create a girl’s team. The same accommodation could be made for a transgender team. Now, before we hear the argument that there are not enough transgender students to create a league of their own, that was the exact same argument made against forcing schools to create women’s leagues. They did it in 1972 and I am sure it can be repeated in 2020.
CALL TO ACTION
As conservatives, we have always lead the anti-discrimination movement. It was Republicans who fought (and died) to free the slaves. It was Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act, it should be Republicans who solve the gender-identity discrimination issue. What can you, the listener of Conservatives Guide to American Politics do? Call on your congressman or woman to require an amendment to TITLE IX such that transgender leagues be created in the spirit of fairness.