Women Are Losing The Battle For Equal Rights!
A recent opinion by three federal judges appointed by Democratic presidents upheld depriving former female high school students in CT of athletic championships and scholarships.
Male-to-female transgender athletes possess insurmountable biological advantages over women and girls.
That is proven.
Tennis great Martina Navratilova summed it up earlier this year: “I played against taller women, I played against stronger women, and I beat them all. But if I faced the male equivalent … that’s biology. I would have no shot.”
Yet, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York City recently affirmed the dismissal of a case brought by four female high school track athletes against the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) and its member high schools. The girls were forced to compete in track events against trans athletes, who consistently beat them, winning state titles and opportunities for lucrative scholarships.
The girls alleged that rules permitting transgender athletes in women’s sports are “now regularly resulting in boys displacing girls in competitive track events in Connecticut… Students who are born female have a much smaller chance of setting recognized records, than students who are born male.”
The girls argued that permitting biological men to compete against them violates Title IX, the law passed in 1972 to ensure equal opportunity for women in athletics.
But the three-judge panel - two women and a male, all appointed by Democratic presidents - said “girls who are cisgender” lack standing because they cannot show a “likelihood” they will be “injured in the future.” The girls’ injuries occurred in 2019 and they’ve graduated from high school.
(The 2nd Circuit’s referral to girls as “girls who are cisgender” indicated they agree that biological boys who “identify” as girls are the equivalent of biological girls. Cisgender refers to people whose gender identity corresponds with their birth sex.)
The judicial panel said the girls had the opportunity to compete for state titles so they were not deprived of a “chance to be champions” (Even though, technically, they were deprived because they were competing against biological males.)
The female athletes sought an injunction requiring CIAC and its member schools “to remove male athletes from any record… designated for girls or women” and “to remove times achieved by athletes born male." The panel claimed “it would be impossible at this point for an injunction correcting the records to grant Plaintiffs improved college recruitment opportunities.”
The court rejected the argument that the girls future employment prospects are affected. The panel agreed employers often find candidates with athletic experience more appealing. “The mere fact that athletic experience may be a significant factor for prospective employers in their hiring decisions does not show that Plaintiff’s future employment opportunities are harmed by the current record.”
When Congress passed Title IX there was not a hint of a thought that it ever would be used to protect biological males who identify as women.
The CIAC claimed that transgender athletes are protected under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a position that can be traced to an executive order signed by President Biden on his first day in office.
The panel concluded the girls failed to show a “proper legal framework for invalidating or altering records achieved by student-athletes who competed in conformity with the applicable rules.”
Women Are Losing The Battle for Equal Rights
Women are losing the battle for equal rights that were guaranteed to them by Title IX in 1972.
The 2nd Circuit panel pointed to a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, CA, which concluded in 2020 that Title IX does not prohibit schools from treating transgender students consistent with their gender identity “because the plan treats all students equally, regardless of their sex.”
The 2nd Circuit panel said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, Pa, ruled in 2018 that allowing transgenders to use girls’ rest rooms and locker rooms “does not discriminate based on sex” under Title IX.
The 2nd Circuit panel said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, VA, ruled in 2020 that a school board policy required students to use the bathrooms that correspond with their biological sex unlawfully discriminated against transgender students in violation of Title IX.
The trend is ominous for women.
It doesn’t just mean that males can compete in female athletics. It also means that biological men can access spaces that historically were set aside for women and girls to ensure privacy and security. This includes prisons, domestic violence shelters, restrooms, locker rooms, homeless shelters… everywhere.
Women will (may already) have no place that is off limits to biological men
Alliance Defending Freedom represented the plaintiffs, Selina Soule, Chelsea Mitchell, Alanna Smith, Ashley Nicoletti and their mothers
The decision was written by Judges Denny Chin (appointed by former Pres. Barack Obama), Susan L. Carney (Obama appointee) and Beth Robinson (President Joe Biden appointee). The case is Selina Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools, 21-1365-cv (2d Cir. 2022).
Judge Robinson is the first openly lesbian judge to serve on any circuit court.
Congress has been silent about this profound change in social mores. It has done nothing to protect its progeny, Title IX, or to ensure women’s equal rights.