A well-intentioned bill that would require transgender students to participate on girls or boys teams according to their real gender and not what they “identify” as died in South Dakota. Sounds like a good idea, right? I suspect this was to prevent males who think they are female from participating in girls sports and dominating the competition, as I wrote about yesterday. I’m all for that, but there is one twist they hadn’t considered.
Bill targeting transgender athlete policy fails in South Dakota
PIERRE, S.D. — A South Dakota bill seeking to scrap a policy allowing transgender students to play on the athletic team that matches their gender identity failed Monday in the state House.
The 34-34 vote fell short of the majority needed to send the bill to the Senate. It’s the fourth bill critics have labeled anti-transgender that state lawmakers have rejected this session. A Senate panel last month rejected a similar bill targeting the South Dakota High School Activities Association policy.
House Majority Leader Lee Qualm, the bill’s sponsor, said the measure was about fair competition.
“South Dakota is breaking no new ground by doing this,” Qualm said, noting it was patterned after Texas. “This is all about fair competition. Boys competing against boys, girls competing against girls, based on the birth certificate.”
But Qualm should have looked a little bit more closely into the history of Texas school athletics because a huge wrench got thrown into their works.
Democratic Rep. Kelly Sullivan urged her colleagues to oppose the bill, saying lawmakers must be focused on work to positively affect South Dakota. Libby Skarin, policy director for the ACLU of South Dakota, said in a statement that all young people should have the chance to play high school sports with their personal dignity respected, and transgender students are no different.
“No one is harmed by allowing transgender people to compete consistent with who they are,” Skarin said.
First of all, what a fitting name for the policy director of the ACLU; Libby. The only better name might be Shithead. Secondly, Libby is dead wrong. Just yesterday I wrote about two boys competing in track who claim to be girls and here was an example of someone who was harmed by it. “One of their competitors, Selina Soule, says the issue is about fairness on the track with wider implications. The Glastonbury High School junior finished eighth in the 55, missing out on qualifying for the New England regionals by two spots. Soule believes that had Miller and Yearwood not run, she would be on her way to race in Boston in front of more college coaches.” But that opportunity was lost. That’s harm.
But had this bill passed, here’s why it wouldn’t have worked the way it was intended. Meet Mack Beggs, the wrench I mentioned earlier. Here “he” is harming one of his female wrestling opponents.
This “guy” won the Texas girls state wrestling title in “his” weight class two years in a row in large part because he was born a she and, as part of her transition process, he was getting testosterone therapy. So essentially what you have here is a girl on steroids, which would be against the rules except that the organization that governs high school athletics in Texas also says that, “rules also prohibit steroid use unless prescribed by a licensed practitioner for a valid medical purpose.” And although I absolutely do NOT consider changing your gender to be a valid medical purpose, they apparently do. And the law meant to promote fair competition backfired.
The bill would have required a student’s sex to be determined by their birth certificate or a South Dakota High School Activities Association physical exam form.
Association Executive Director Dan Swartos has said a “very small number” of transgender students participate with the exemption.
The association’s 2015 policy requires a student and parent to notify their school that the student wants to play on the sports team that matches their gender identity.
The school submits an application and documentation to the association for review by an independent hearing officer who must be a licensed attorney and a member of the State Bar of South Dakota. The student or the student’s school can appeal the hearing officer’s decision to the association’s board of directors for a final decision. The rules say that gender identity can’t be used to gain an unfair competitive advantage.
Similar bills to end the policy failed in the 2015 and 2016 sessions.
This year, lawmakers have also rejected measures to limit teaching about gender dysphoria in public schools and allow a parent to refuse consent to health care treatments for a minor child if the parent thought it would induce, confirm or promote the child’s belief that their gender identity is different than their sex at birth.
Cathryn Oakley, state legislative director and senior counsel at the Human Rights Campaign, said earlier in February that South Dakota introduced four “anti-trans” bills this year, more than any other state.
All of this just leaves me with a lot of questions. Are these bills really “anti-trans” or pro normalcy? Why are they teaching “gender dysphoria” in public schools? Why can’t a parent refuse consent to health care that they fear might turn their child into a freak? And really, why is this even an issue? Why if children under the age of 18 aren’t considered responsible enough to vote are they considered wise enough to change their gender? Any parent that allows them to do so should be charged with at least child endangerment if not outright child abuse.
