This document contains, in the order given below, the following sample texts, information, and resources:
- HR 734 Sample Text for Democratic Congressmembers Who Voted No
- S.613 Sample Text for Senate Democrats
- Title IX Regulation re School Athletics
- Sample Text for Federal Register Submission
- Some Commentary on the Context
- Resources for Additional Information
HR 734 Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2023
Sample Text for Democratic Congressmembers Who Voted No
Dear Congressmember _________:
I’m a lifelong Democrat, and I am writing to share my concern that you voted no on the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2023, H.R. 734. I have read the bill and do not see anything about it to which Democrats should object in principle. It is certainly not transphobic, and any issues with its wording could easily have been addressed by amendments codifying reasonable exceptions, for example, in the case of pre-puberty intramural athletics. With regard to post-puberty athletics, and particularly competitive athletics, however, it is flabbergasting to see my own Democratic Party take a position that descends into abject science denial.
Powerful scientific evidence, provided in study after study, has demonstrated that male puberty brings with it insurmountable advantages that cannot be overcome, even with suppression of testosterone. And certainly Democrats, past champions of women’s rights, should not be in the business of destroying any semblance of a level playing field for natal women and girls in order to cater to natal boys and men who simply raise their hands to self-identify as women.
I ask you, as my representative, to lead the way to a return to following the science. Excellent models abound that the Democrats might follow, including that proposed by Martina Navratilova, under which there would be two competitive categories, one for natal females only and the other open to anyone. Other excellent proposals include those offered by the Women’s Sports Policy Working Group and Seb Coe with World Athletics. At present, however, the position Democrats are currently wedded to turns girls’ and women’s athletic ambitions into a joke. We’ve already seen what this looks like when natal males are allowed to compete against and take medals away from natal female athletes.
I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider your position on this issue and return to following the science. Natal women and girls need your support, now more than ever.
Resources
HR 734 text (passed by the House):Click here
House Roll Call Vote Information: https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2023192
Note: 10 Democrats did not vote. If yours is among them, check to see what public statements they have made. Here, for example, is one from Dan Goldman (NY) on Twitter:
@RepDanGoldman
HR 734 is a transphobic and divisive Republican culture war bill that would actively allow
schools to discriminate against LGBTQI+ students.
We can’t stand for these hateful bills that hurt our children and codify bigotry.
S.613 – Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2023
Sample Text for Senate Democrats
Link to bill: S. 613 (companion bill to HR 734, introduced in the Senate):
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/613/text
Dear Senator _________:
I’m a lifelong Democrat, and I am writing about the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2023, S. 613.
I am asking you to support this bill, subject to appropriate amendments, as described below. I have read the bill and do not see anything about it to which Democrats should object in principle. It is certainly not transphobic, and any issues with its wording can be addressed by amendments codifying reasonable, science-based exceptions, for example, in the case of pre-puberty intramural athletics. With regard to post-puberty athletics, and particularly competitive athletics, however, it has been flabbergasting to see my own Democratic Party take positions that descend into abject science denial. This needs to change now.
Powerful scientific evidence, provided in study after study, has demonstrated that male puberty brings with it insurmountable advantages that cannot be overcome, even with suppression of testosterone. And certainly Democrats, past champions of women’s rights, should not be in the business of destroying any semblance of a level playing field for natal women and girls in order to cater to natal boys and men who simply raise their hands to self-identify as women.
I urge you to lead the way to a return to following the science. Excellent models abound that the Democrats might use, including that proposed by Martina Navratilova, under which there would be two competitive categories, one for natal females only and the other open to anyone. Other excellent proposals include those offered by the Women’s Sports Policy Working Group and Seb Coe and World Athletics.
At present, however, the position Democrats are currently wedded to turns girls’ and women’s athletic ambitions into a joke. We’ve already seen what this looks like when natal males are allowed to compete against, and take medals and so many other opportunities away from, natal female athletes.
Please don’t let the right run away with these issues under the pretense that it has the high ground. Of course, I’d be delighted if the amendments pass and a scientifically sound amended bill passed into law. I suspect strongly, however, that, if the Democrats amend the bill in ways like those I suggest, the right will refuse to adopt them. This alone will allow Democrats to retake the high ground on these issues without continuing to throw natal women and girls under the bus.
Natal women and girls need your support, now more than ever. Please don’t fail us.
Title IX Regulation re School Athletics
Text of Regulation
PART 106—NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX IN EDUCATION PROGRAMS OR
ACTIVITIES RECEIVING FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
1. The authority citation for part 106 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 106.41 is amended by:
a. Designating the text following the heading in paragraph (b) as paragraph (b)(1); and
b. Adding paragraph (b)(2).
The addition reads as follows:
§ 106.41
Athletics.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) If a recipient adopts or applies sex-related criteria that would limit or deny a student’s eligibility to participate on a male or female team consistent with their gender identity, such criteria must, for each sport, level of competition, and grade or education level:
(i) Be substantially related to the achievement of an important educational objective; and
(ii) Minimize harms to students whose opportunity to participate on a male or female team consistent with their gender identity would be limited or denied.
Sample Text
I am writing to comment on 34 CFR Part 106 [Docket ID ED–2022–OCR–0143] RIN 1870–AA19 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance: Sex-Related Eligibility Criteria for Male and Female Athletic Teams, published on April 13, 2023.
The Department should not expect recipients to understand how to navigate this, and it is not necessary in order to achieve the twin goals of inclusion and fairness. Recipients, particularly public schools and universities, are already overburdened. The regulation, as currently designed, will not only add an additional burden, but also, no matter what a recipient decides to do, will unnecessarily expose the recipient to litigation over the interpretation of the ambiguous language of the regulation.
To lessen this burden on recipients, I recommend adding a section (3): The following models for resolution, if implemented by a recipient, shall be considered conclusive as to compliance with the regulations in the categories to which they apply:
a. The Navratilova Model, for post-puberty athletics: “have ‘biological female’ and ‘biological girls’ categories and then an ‘open’ category. It would be a category for all-comers: men who identify as men; women who identify as women; women who identify as men; men who identify as women; non-binary — it would be a catch-all. This is already being explored in athletics and swimming in Britain. Biological females are most likely to compete in the biological female category, as that’s their best shot at winning and it maintains the principle of fairness. With an ‘open’ category there are no question marks, no provisos, no asterisks, no doubts.” (quote from Martina Navratilova, Op-Ed, London Times, March 26, 2023)
b. The Women’s Sports Policy Sports Working Group Model, which can be found here:
https://womenssportspolicy.org/the-resolution/
c. The World Athletics Model (for all sports to which it is applicable), which can be found
here: https://worldathletics.org/news/press-releases/council-meeting-march-2023-russia-belarus-female-eligibility
Where to Submit (Comments may be submitted until 5/15/23)
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/13/2023-07601/nondiscrimination
The Context
Introduction, on the second iteration of proposed Title IX regulations
The Biden administration’s second shot at Title IX regulations, this time focused solely on school athletics, is now open for comment (through May 15). The first thing to report is there is improvement. That happened because over 200,000 comments were submitted on the first set of regs proposed, which may have been the largest number of comments ever received in response to a call for submissions.
Unfortunately, the result is not good enough. There are straightforward fixes, but they won’t happen on their own. So, anyone concerned may wish to submit a comment. It’s not hard, and you don’t need to get involved in legalese. The important thing is quantity, not deathless prose. These are the points stressed in the sample text provided above:
- devolving this to the level of individual schools and universities is both unworkable and unnecessary, and an invitation to be sued no matter what they do.
- models for resolution should be referred to in the regulations as approaches that, if implemented by any school or university, shall be considered conclusive as to compliance with the regulations in the categories to which they apply.
You’ll see sample language you are free to use, together with the language of the regulation.
What’s Going On Here?
Two problems must be addressed to get a good set of updated regulations. It’s important to note that these same problems pertain to the current state of the gender identity discourse overall. Unless these two problems are addressed, we’re not going to get out of the doom loop we’re currently in, and the people who will continue to be hurt most by this are women and girls.
The two problems are science denial and charged language. What’s confounding about the former is that in this case, the science denial is coming from the Democratic side of the political aisle. That is, on issues related to gender identity, the public officials, governmental entities, charitable institutions, and pundits on which most of us as Democrats usually rely turn out to be unreliable on these issues. One consequence of this is that the far right is even more enabled to weaponize an already difficult conversation.
How This Manifests in the Current Proposed Title IX Regulations on School Athletics
Science Denial
We’ve got to stop conflating use of the terms “gender identity” and “sex” and how they each operate in the world.
- “Gender identity,” as used in the current discourse, is an idea. That is, it is a person’s individual sense of self, both internally and as expressed to the outer world.
- ”Sex” is a set of observable biological facts.
As Helen Joyce, a longtime journalist at The Economist now working with the UK organization Sex Matters, recently put it, “In lots of situations, sex doesn’t matter. . . . [but] when it matters, it’s sex that matters.”
School athletics is one of those cases where sex matters. Like it or not, this creates a conflict between “gender identity” and “sex.” Where the conflict is unresolvable, “sex” must control.
Charged Language
Using the term “ban” to describe any sex-based restriction on who may play on what team is an example of charged language. (Calling Martina Navratilova a “transphobe” for saying sex matters in athletics is another example.) If we want to get out of this doom loop and solve the conflicts in front of us, we need to throw those terms in the bin, put the lid on tight, and get down to the business of determining how the variables most of us seem to agree upon need to play out. These are:
- ”Inclusion.” The bedrock principle here is that everyone gets a chance to participate in school sports, and, where relevant to the activity, to compete. This means everyone, no matter their sex, their gender identity, and hey, let’s throw in sexual orientation, too.
- Fairness.” The bedrock principle here is that, at least once puberty hits, sex matters, and, for that reason, it has to control. This will mean that, in many cases, teams must be separated by sex. To do that does not ban anyone from inclusion in school sports. It is simply a recognition that biological reality dictates what is fair. That cannot be compromised, as it is not in the control of anyone to change.
For an excellent primer on how male and female biology affects competitive sports: Click here.
The Solution
There are several. Here are three, all excellent:
The Navratilova Solution (relating to competitive athletics, post-puberty):
“In the wake of World Athletics’ announcement, I think the best idea would be to have “biological female” and “biological girls” categories and then an “open” category. It would be a category for all-comers: men who identify as men; women who identify as women; women who identify as men; men who identify as women; non-binary — it would be a catch-all. This is already being explored in athletics and swimming in Britain.
“Biological females are most likely to compete in the biological female category, as that’s their best shot at winning and it maintains the principle of fairness. With an “open” category there are no question marks, no provisos, no asterisks, no doubts. It’s a simple solution.
“Once somebody has gone through male puberty, there is no way to erase that physical advantage. You cannot simply turn back the clock, for instance by trying to lower testosterone levels. Testosterone is the biggest driving force in the division between the sexes, but it’s not the only one. The effects of male puberty are irreversible.”
(Her complete Op-Ed is in the March 26, 2023, edition of the London Times.)
Update: on May 26, 2023, British Cycling revised its policies on Transgender and Non-Binary Participation. For competitive cycling, British Cycling adopted the model Martina Navratilova outlined above. The process British Cycling describes in its announcement (which also addresses non-competitive cycling) is worth reading as a model of how to arrive at a proper balance of fairness and inclusion. Among other things, British Cycling will conduct ongoing review of the science and adjust its policies as and when needed.
The Women’s Sports Policy Sports Working Group Resolution (relating to all levels, and whether competitive or not)
Navratilova is part of and notes this Working Group in her London Times Op-Ed. The Working Group’s approach is more granular, including covering pre-puberty participation in athletics. The group’s thoughtful, science-based information and analysis may be found here:
https://womenssportspolicy.org/the-resolution/
World Athletics Resolution
Effective March 31, 2023, World Athletics determined the following:
“In regard to transgender athletes, the Council has agreed to exclude male-to-female transgender athletes who have been through male puberty from female World Rankings competition from 31 March 2023. . . .
“However the Council agreed to set up a Working Group for 12 months to further consider the issue of transgender inclusion.
“This Working Group will include an independent chair, up to three Council Members, two athletes from the Athletes’ Commission, a transgender athlete, three representatives of the Member Federations and representatives of the World Athletics Health and Science Department.
“Its remit will be to consult specifically with transgender athletes to seek their views on competing in athletics; to review and/or commission additional research where there is currently limited research and to put forward recommendations to Council.
“World Athletics President Sebastian Coe said: “Decisions are always difficult when they involve conflicting needs and rights between different groups, but we continue to take the view that we must maintain fairness for female athletes above all other considerations. We will be guided in this by the science around physical performance and male advantage which will inevitably develop over the coming years. As more evidence becomes available, we will review our position, but we believe the integrity of the female category in athletics is paramount.”
The complete press release from which this taken may be found here:
https://worldathletics.org/news/press-releases/council-meeting-march-2023-russia-belarus-female-eligibility
Postscript
We hope this is helpful, and we want to conclude on a hopeful note. Many of you may be aware of the disruption and violence that greeted “Let Women Speak” events in Manhattan last year and Auckland, NZ recently. We’re pleased to report that the most recent “Let Women Speak” event, in Belfast, was not marred by any of this—with much thanks due to the Belfast police, who know a thing or two about “troubles.” As a result, it was possible watch and actually hear a number of the women who spoke. The variety of viewpoints was both stunning and moving.
This, from an online description, will give you a little sense of it:
“A young lesbian spoke about how she had been shamed for only wanting to date other women. (Like so many other lesbians throughout history, she was essentially told she just hadn’t met the right man yet.) She also called out LGBT groups for fueling ‘some of the worst homophobia that we are now experiencing’.
“An older woman, who spent her youth working as a labour activist, a nurse, and a purveyor of contraception and abortion information, defiantly told the crowd: ‘We need no lectures from the people over there about care and love. We give it every day of the week.’
“A black English woman spoke of the pain of needing a double-mastectomy to treat her breast cancer: ‘I still can’t put into words how it felt to lose the breasts that fed my children… When I hear about these young children who are deliberately having these mastectomies… It’s unthinkable.’ Her voice and hands shook as she spoke.”
It was hard to steal that show, but a Belfast high schooler did it. She (Twitter: @brandubh4) wrote a poem, “I am not a dress,” and recited it (from memory, natch). Here it is, in full:
We are women, we are warriors of steel!
Woman is something no man will ever feel.
Woman is not a skill that any man can hold.
Woman is our word and it is ours alone.
I am not a dress to be worn on a whim
A man in a dress is nonetheless a ‘him.”
Women are not simply what we wear.
If this offends you, I do not care.
I am not an idea in any man’s mind.
And my purposes in life is not to “Be Kind.”
So while my words are trampled every day of the week,
I will not stand by being docile and meek.
I am not defined by sexist lies.
There is more to woman than that shallow guise.
That guise of dresses, bikinis, and skirts,
Those clothes are not what a womanhood is worth.
I am not a bitch, a TERF, a whore, a slag,
Hysterical old witch, a slut, a hag.
No, I am a woman, I’m a female
Who will not let her rights be put up for sale.
I am not defined by what men are not.
So to hell with “Cis” misogynistic rot.
I am a woman, I’m not a subset of my sex.
If this makes me a dinosaur, so be it, I’m a T-Rex.
I am not a bleeder nor a menstruator, a womb carrier or a uterus haver.
Those words and phrases are such a sham.
Just call me woman, it is who I am.
We are women, we are warriors of steel!
Woman is something no man will ever feel.
Woman is not a skill that any man can hold.
Woman is our word and it is ours alone.
Bonus points for answering this question: What pop song does this poem remind you of?
Resources for Further Exploration of These Issues, if Desired
In the US. Lisa Selin Davis’s Substack Broadview is an excellent resource. Davis is a journalist. Her primary focus is the impact of gender identity-related issues on families, and her mission is to model sound investigative journalism that allows the full, complex picture to emerge.
In the UK. The UK is far ahead of the US in grappling with these issues. That is largely because there is now a critical mass of people, particularly women, who have managed to break through the wall of silence so that a substantive discourse can occur. Below are three of the women we often turn to for trenchant, substantive, provocative analysis—often spiced with trademark British wit.
Helen Joyce. Her book “Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality” offers a readable, intelligent, thought-provoking overview. She also writes for the UK online magazine, The Critic. Her debut article, “Hard Lessons in Life,” can be found here: https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/april-2023/hard-lessons-in-life/
Also, she recently participated in a “book club” format discussion focused on the book that provides an excellent overview of her thinking. https://youtu.be/ivinqYpBnsE
Victoria Smith. We haven’t yet had a chance to read her book, “Hags,” but, for those interested in issues relating to aging and womanhood, this looks like a good option. She also writes for The Critic, and her most recent article, “Running Like a Girl” is excellent. https://thecritic.co.uk/running-like-a-girl/
Kathleen Stock. Her book, “Material Girls: Why Reality Matters for Feminism,” is superb. Stock is a philosopher and former professor. Her book offers, among other things, many insights into what happened in the halls of academe that helped get us into this fix. Stock also writes for the UK online magazine Unherd. Her most recent article, “How the Trans Census Fooled Britain,” provides a typically smart and witty take on the mess sex and gender miscategorizations can make in compiling critical data: https://unherd.com/2023/04/how-the-trans-census-fooled-britain/
Hannah Barnes. Barnes is a journalist with the BBC. Her book, “Time to Think: The Inside Story of the Collapse of the Tavistock’s Gender Service for Children,” is foundational for those wanting to know more about this topic. (Hannah Barnes will join Lisa Selin Davis on Davis’s Broadview Substack to discuss the book on May 13.) Two articles in The Economist provide a short form overview of the findings in the book:
“The evidence to support medicalised gender transitions in adolescents is worryingly weak”
“What America has got wrong about gender medicine”
Photo by Jonathan Chng on Unsplash