Democrats' Equality Act

[John T Ford]

Every House Democrat but one has co-sponsored a bill requiring schools to allow male athletes who identify as transgender girls to compete on female sports teams.

Democrats’ Equality Act would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make “sexual orientation and gender identity” protected characteristics under federal anti-discrimination law. Among other things, the bill would force public schools to expand female athletic teams to include biological males who identify as transgender girls.

Sarah Warbelow, director of the left-wing Human Rights Campaign, praised the bill’s impact on high school sports in written testimony submitted to a House subcommittee on Tuesday.

234 House Democrats, 2 Republicans Co-Sponsor Bill Forcing Schools to Let Male Athletes Compete on Girls Sports Teams



Why are Leftist so discriminatory towards women?

This will virtually end women's sports and deny them scholarships that go with them.

Is it their goal to limit how many woman can go to school on sports scholarships?

What's next .... limited admission for women in America's colleges and universities?

Will we see proposals to confiscate womens driver's licenses and voter registration cards?

The Left truly is the Party of the Regressives.

 

[John T Ford]

Democrat Rep. Joe Kennedy decried sports leagues for only women and girls and said sports competitions must be for all “human beings.”

Joe Kennedy: No Sports Competitions for Girls, Only for Human Beings

What is wrong with these people?

 

[OlGuy]

Female sports atheletes will no doubt need more beer delivery now.

 

[Rasselas]

Okay...I've read the text of the bill and I'm not sure how it does what you say it does. It appears simply to add language to certain sections of the Civil Rights Act, replacing "sex" with "sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity.)". Are you arguing that we SHOULD be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity?

Here's the language dealing with public education specifically:

SEC. 5. DESEGREGATION OF PUBLIC EDUCATION.


(a) Definitions.—Section 401(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000c(b)) is amended by inserting “(including sexual orientation and gender identity),” before “or national origin”.

(b) Civil Actions By The Attorney General.—Section 407 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000c–6) is amended, in subsection (a)(2), by inserting “(including sexual orientation and gender identity),” before “or national origin”.

(c) Classification And Assignment.—Section 410 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000c–9) is amended by inserting “(including sexual orientation and gender identity),” before “or national origin”.

Do you even know which of these sections deal with sports team participation? And if children born male who identity as female can participate in girls sports, couldn't the inverse be true? Children born girls who identify as male could participate in boys' sports? Why doesn't that bother you?

 

[John T Ford]

Okay...I've read the text of the bill and I'm not sure how it does what you say it does. It appears simply to add language to certain sections of the Civil Rights Act, replacing "sex" with "sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity.)". Are you arguing that we SHOULD be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity?

Here's the language dealing with public education specifically:

Do you even know which of these sections deal with sports team participation? And if children born male who identity as female can participate in girls sports, couldn't the inverse be true? Children born girls who identify as male could participate in boys' sports? Why doesn't that bother you?

Are you denying that this bill if signed into law would NOT force schools to allow males to compete in female sports?

 

[HayJenn]

Are you denying that this bill if signed into law would NOT force schools to allow males to compete in female sports?

The text of the bill does not mention sports or athletics

So yeah, you are wrong again.

BTW, there already a thread on this topic.

 

[John T Ford]

The outcome of this Bill is clear.

Julia Beck, the head of a self-described radical feminist organization, testified against the bill.

The Democrats’ bill would lead to a male invasion of female spaces, including on the athletic field, Beck said in her April 2 testimony. “Men will dominate female sports,” she warned.


234 House Democrats, 2 Republicans Co-Sponsor Bill Forcing Schools to Let Male Athletes Compete on Girls Sports Teams

 

[Rasselas]

Are you denying that this bill if signed into law would NOT force schools to allow males to compete in female sports?

Honestly, I'm not sure what it would do in that regard, so I'm not denying it. It would a do a great many things other than that too--things I think are a good idea.

 

[John T Ford]

Honestly, I'm not sure what it would do in that regard, so I'm not denying it. It would a do a great many things other than that too--things I think are a good idea.

I think all Common Sense thinking folks agree that this will put an end to female sports.

There's already a case in Connecticut where two boys have dominated the women's high school track competition.

One can logically expect that will eventually be the majority of cases across the Country.

Does that seem fair to girls and young women to you?

 

[Rasselas]

I think all Common Sense thinking folks agree that this will put an end to female sports.

We'll have to see. There are relatively few transgender teens, and even fewer who want to compete in sports. You're implying that lots of boys who can't cut it on the boy's teams will pretend to be girls so they can compete against girls. I just don't think that's likely. My Common Sense says "No, the stigma would be too great."

There's already a case in Connecticut where two boys have dominated the women's high school track competition.

One can logically expect that will eventually be the majority of cases across the Country.

Does that seem fair to girls and young women to you?

If what you suggest comes to pass, then yes. I doubt the case you cite will become common.

Do you have a link for the Connecticut case?