Florida Joins Other States in Demanding Fairness for Female Athletes ⋆ Politicrossing
Connect with us

News

Florida Joins Other States in Demanding Fairness for Female Athletes

Published

on

A Florida House committee recently passed a bill called the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act. As originally reported by The Associated Press, the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act:

“would require that anyone participating in girls and women’s sports at the K-12 and college level be biologically eligible to do so. If challenged, they would have to get confirmation from a health care provider that they are female. That could include a doctor examining their genitals.”

Florida is not alone. As a matter of fact, many other states have recently proposed laws banning transgender student-athletes from competing in the categories that they identify. For example, the North Dakota legislature passed a bill that would restrict competitors to biological gender categories. Other states have proposed similar laws, including Mississippi (“Mississippi Fairness Act”), Tennessee, and Utah. As reported by NPR:

Trending on PolitiCrossing.com: The Department of Two-tiered Justice

This year, state legislators have introduced 35 bills restricting transgender girls and women — that is, girls and women who were not assigned as female at birth — from playing on girls’ and women’s sports teams, according to LGBTQ advocacy group Freedom for All Americans.

There are many compelling reasons to support such bills. For example, Republican Rep. Kaylee Tuck, who sponsored the Florida bill, stated, “The act is pro-women and pro-girls and only acknowledges the biological differences between men and women.” As reported in Breitbart, North Dakota Rep. Kathy Skroch was quoted as saying, “This is about girls competing with girls, ensuring equal opportunity and keeping a level playing field in girls’ sports.” Skroch further noted that the bill would assure “50 years of progress and protecting women against discrimination.”

There are many instances where female student-athletes have been unfairly forced to compete against biological boys/men who identified as girls/women. For example, Selina Soule, a track star at Bloomfield High School in Connecticut, “failed to qualify for regionals in the 55-meter run because two spots were taken by biological boys who identified as girls and who ran faster.” Tuck cited to another example involving Allyson Felix, the only woman to win six track and field gold medals in the Olympics. As reported by The Associated Press, citing Tuck:

“Allyson Felix is the fastest woman in the world… but yet the personal best in the 400 meters can be beaten by hundreds of high school boys. If we allow biological males to compete in athletic events against biological females, we may never see another Allyson Felix again.”

Additional examples can be found here, here, and here.

While there are many reasons to enact such bills, the enforceability/legality of such bills is still up in the air for several reasons. First, in January of this year, President Biden issued an executive order where he, in essence, threatened to “take federal education funds away from any state that refuses to allow transgender athletes to compete in whatever category they feel like choosing.”

Moreover, in Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court held that “Title VII’s prohibition against “sex discrimination” includes a prohibition against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.” In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, many schools that receive federal financial assistance were placed in a difficult position in light of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 which prohibits sex discrimination. The theory was that if “sex” under Title VII included sexual orientation and gender identity, the same definition could apply under Title IX. This specific issue has not yet been addressed/resolved by the Supreme Court.

Finally, the fate of the Equality Act, which recently passed the House of Representatives, has yet to be determined in the Senate. Given the current make-up of the Senate, passage of the bill is highly unlikely if Republicans mount a filibuster. The problem for Republicans is that Democrats could very well try to eliminate or reform the filibuster in order to pass this bill (Democrats will likely use the same tactic with respect to H.R. 1, the For the People Act). Assuming that Democrats do so (which would be very risky politically), the Equality Act could very well pass in the Senate and subsequently become law.

There is very little doubt that bills such as those in Florida and other states will face legal challenges. As reported by NPR, “The first state transgender sports law, passed in Idaho last year, was later blocked by a federal judge who argued, in part, that the state had ‘not identified a legitimate interest served by the Act.’”

Given the position of the current administration, Biden’s executive order, the Bostock decision, and the possible passage of the Equality Act (which Republicans and some Democrats will hopefully vote against in its current form), bills of this nature will ultimately face legal scrutiny. Time will tell whether or not they can survive such legal challenges.

Mr. Hakim is a political writer and commentator and an attorney.  His articles have been published in The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, American Greatness, The Algemeiner, The Western Journal, American Thinker and other online publications. 

https://thoughtfullyconservative.wordpress.com

We'd love to hear your thoughts about this article. Please take a minute to share them in the comment section by clicking here. Or carry the conversation over on your favorite social network by clicking one of the share buttons below.



  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
 
 
 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.



News

Achievements Through the Ages

Marshaling resources, establishing order, and carefully scheduling activities and events are vital in any era

Published

on

Besides being regarded as the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, what do these sites have in common: the Great Pyramid at Giza, Egypt; the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, in what is now Iraq; the Statue of Zeus at Olympia, Greece; the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, Turkey; the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, in what is now Bodrum, Turkey; the Colossus of Rhodes in Greece; and the Lighthouse at Alexandria, Egypt?

Added to the above, what do the following sites, often referred to as the New Seven Wonders of the World, have in common? The Great Wall of China; Petra, an archaeological city in southern Jordan; the Colosseum in Rome, Italy; Chichen Itza in the Yucatán of Mexico; Machu Picchu in the Cuzco region of Peru; the Taj Mahal in Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India; and the Christ the Redeemer statue overlooking Rio de Janeiro, Brazil?

Last, what do these have in common: the Acropolis in Athens, Greece; the Suez Canal; the Panama Canal; the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, Turkey; Teotihuacan in the Basin of Mexico; the Empire State Building in New York City; the Eiffel Tower in Paris; the Porcelain Tower of Nanjing, China; El Mirador in Guatemala; the Tower of London; and many other notable places around the world?

Trending on PolitiCrossing.com: The Department of Two-tiered Justice

Long Before Today’s Tools of Technology

The answer to all of the above, in a nutshell, is that they are major architectural, landscaping, or construction feats that were conceived, built, and perfected without the aid of a computer, software, or any of the technological tools that are commonly associated with project management.

The same can be said of the Great Canadian Railway, the Patagonia Highway in South America, the Hoover Dam in Arizona, the Itaipu Dam bordering Brazil and Paraguay, the U.S. Interstate Highway System, the Great Siege Tunnels of Gibraltar, the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, the Trans-Siberian Highway, the Aswan Dam in Egypt, the first passenger ocean liners, pre-World War II aircraft, early steel mills, etc.

Regarding the “Wonders” named above, to say it another way, long before anyone knew about electricity, let alone cyberspace or management software and spreadsheets, ambitious civilizations around the globe, pioneering builders, devised and constructed some of the most enduring, iconic sites and destinations in the world.

These massive projects involved conception (that is, the genesis of the idea), designing, planning, and material and labor considerations, all of which are part of today’s computer-aided world that obviously none of the builders and designers of these projects had at their disposal. As such, not all projects proceeded with the efficiency that today’s projects can muster. There were costly delays, high accident and mortality rates, and sometimes gargantuan setbacks. Despite it all, the march of civilization and the proliferation of monumental feats continued unabated.

Your Bottom Line

Whether it’s client services, team building, or what-have-you, what are their underlying concepts, and what makes their tenets viable now and for the future? You want to always seek both the short- and the long-term utility of a management methodology, a tool, a system, or even a set of beliefs.

With effective management, when you sweep away the contemporary hubbub, an underlying structure prevails. The need to marshal adequate resources, to establish order, and to carefully schedule activities and events, all remain vital in any era. Technological tools provide the contemporary template and operating systems by which we do proceed, while the underlying fundamentals of effective management are relatively constant.

When you stay open-minded to the available new terminology and tools, you’ll tend to learn new things and gain perspectives that you might not otherwise encounter. So, understand new terminology and tools, but do not be ensnared by them as if they are so vital that you can’t successfully manage a project without them.

– – – – –

 

Continue Reading

Education

Angry Parents Aren’t Terrorists—They’re Just Terrors to Public School Boards

Published

on

parents
Photo credit: Ryan Snaadt

Dear school boards: When you poke mama and papa bear, don’t be surprised when they growl and bare their teeth. And writing a letter to the president asking him to sic the FBI on parents rather than treating them as partners in education seems more political than needful.

To understand the gulf between parents and educators, just watch a school board meeting on youtube (if you still can). You’ll see concerned parents voicing their concerns at microphones. They look like defendants standing before judges in a tribunal. What happened to PTAs?

In school board meetings across the nation, parents are treated as opponents rather than partners. They’re frustrated and angry with imperious school boards who seem to insist that they know what’s best for their children.

Trending on PolitiCrossing.com: The Department of Two-tiered Justice

At times their anger causes them to raise their voices in passionate speeches. They love their children and seek to protect them from what they view as indoctrination, not education. Parental love drives their passion and triggers their protective instincts. This doesn’t make them domestic terrorists.

If school board members and teachers feel threatened by genuine threats in public meetings or on social media, they should be investigated—by local authorities, not by the federal government.

Yet last week the National School Boards Association (NSBA) wrote a letter to President Biden asking him to direct the Justice Department to investigate angry parents for hate crimes and domestic terrorism. Domestic terrorism.

Why are parents so angry? Three issues come to mind: mask mandates, sex education that includes transgenderism, and Critical Race Theory.

Mask mandates

Masks can and do help prevent the transmission of the coronavirus. But they’re not necessarily a good option for children simply because, by and large, the virus is not deadly to kids.

In fact, 98-99 percent of children who get COVID fully recover. With this in mind, by doing a simple risk assessment of masking schoolchildren versus not masking them, we’d conclude that it’s better to let them learn without masks.

Additionally, we simply don’t know the longterm adverse effects forced masking has on learning. Most kids are visual learners and take cues from facial expressions. Their socialization may also suffer as a result.

Clearly, because educators are more at risk of death from COVID-19, they should continue masking. Thoughtful parents know their children who do not have preexisting conditions are generally safe to attend school without masks.

Why do school boards and teachers unions continue to push unnecessary and likely harmful mask mandates on children? For whom are they most concerned with protecting? If they believe in masking, they should mask up and suck it up. If they’re still afraid, perhaps they’re not cut out to be educators.

Sex re-education

Teaching children about the birds and the bees is a parent’s job, not a teacher’s. Sex ed is a family issue, not the state’s. Can’t it wait until just before puberty, rather than being taught to kids K-5?

Many traditional parents share this opinion. So is the self-evident truth that binary genders exist in human biology—and in reality. Parents who embrace this truth and passionately speak up about it are now at risk of being accused of hate speech.

We are born male or female. No amount of surgery or hormone treatment changes this reality. Parents know this and also know that confusing kids with fantasy genders and damaging gender reassignment harms them.

Public school educators have more than enough on their plates with teaching reading, writing and arithmetic. They should leave sex education to parents and resist pressure to push gender nonsense on impressionable children.

Parents are also concerned with the prospect of hormonally-altered boys competing against their girls in sports. This obviously gives males unfair physically advantages and presents a danger to the health of welfare of overmatched females.

The Journal of Medical Ethics affirmed this reality in a recent study in which the researchers concluded that “the advantage to transwomen afforded by the IOC guidelines is an intolerable unfairness.”

Bad theory

What is Critical Race Theory?

Critical Race Theory (CRT), as defined in a video by the Heritage Foundation, is a philosophy founded on Marxist analysis that claims America is “systemically racist.”

CRT proponents, active in colleges and universities for years, now seek to impact public policy in public schools. As a result, CRT is beginning to gain a foothold in K-12. This makes parents angry.

Most parents and some educators and school board members reject CRT’s racial discrimination for equity in favor of equality and opportunity for all— regardless of skin color.

The vast majority of thoughtful and caring parents believe that CRT teaches children to feel guilty for their “whiteness” while accepting the lie that America’s systems are inherently racist.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act dealt a mortal blow to systemic racism in America. Critical Race Theory ignores this landmark legislation and the fact that racism resides in people, not systems.

Obviously, there a differing definitions of systemic racism held by those on both sides of the issue. Just as there are differing definitions of “hate speech.” Perhaps it would be helpful to rely on definitions that are based in logic and common sense rather than emotion and agenda.

In the minds of many parents, Critical Race Theory is nothing more than partisan propaganda. CRT is harmful because it produces unmerited guilt, divides us and denies the attainability of the American Dream for people of color.

This is not borne out by our nation’s history. Rather, it’s debunked by generations of immigrants and people of color who came to America legally and made better and more prosperous lives for themselves and their families.

Terrorists or terrors?

To justify their appeal to the president for federal law enforcement support, the National School Boards Association is misapplying words and phrases to vilify angry and frustrated parents. Why? They’re either seeking to clear obstacles to their agenda and/or they mistake parental passion for peril to themselves.

Have some angry parents (or those who side with them) gone too far with social media attacks and threats? Probably. Does any of this have to do with genuine hate speech or domestic terrorism? Unlikely.

What’s more likely is that words like hate and terror are being misused to trigger more government interference in the lives of parents and their children.

Branding angry parents domestic terrorists is absurd hyperbole at best and political weaponization at worst. Parents who are merely resisting ideological intrusion into their public schools—and their children’s lives—deserve better.

What we need is an overhaul of a failing public school system and vouchers for charter schools and alternative educational systems like home schooling.

Why should we continue funding increasingly political public schools? Why should we believe school boards who claim parents are engaging in hate speech, threats of violence, and terrorism when most seek merely to protect their children by exercising their freedom of speech with passion and conviction?

Continue Reading

 

Our Newsletter

Become a Politicrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Sites We Like

Our Newsletter

Become a PolitiCrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Trending

Politicrossing
 
Send this to a friend