Retired NFL Player Calls for 'Separate Transgender Category' in Sports in Response to Biden's 'Body Blow to the Rights of Women and Girls'

(AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall, File)

On today’s episode of “Progressive Heads Explode in 3… 2… 1…”, a retired NFL player has suggested the creation of a separate category for transgender athletes, following Biden’s executive order allowing boys who think they’re girls to play on girls’ sports teams.


Former defensive end Marcellus Wiley, a father of three girls, also thinks it’s time to have a national discussion on the issue.

“As a father of 3 daughters & the husband to a former collegiate athlete, this hits home in a special way🤯It’s time to create a separate transgender category in competition!

“Also think it’s time for me to start a podcast bcuz some things need to be discussed in detail!đź’Ż#respect”

Is it too early to tell Marcellus he’s “transphobic,” “homophobic,” “sexist,” and whatever other “phobics” and “isms” the Left slaps on “hateful” people who have the misguided gall to stand against their “progressive” destruction of America and its institutions? [sarc]

Check out the case of 400-meter hurdles runner Craig Telfer Wiley referenced in a tweet, which follows the following tweet.

2016: Craig Telfer is ranked 200th
2017: Craig Telfer is ranked 390th
2018: Craig Telfer “transitions to female”
2019: CeCe Telfer is national champion


How many girls and young women trained for years to compete in that event and others like it? The guy goes from being ranked below 389 males in 2017 to national champion two years later — simply by declaring himself a female. That is disgusting.

Looks can be deceiving. I mean, look at Marcellus and his beautiful family, below.

Who knew that an evil, hateful bigot exists behind his smile? A hater who wants to keep “transgendered” people the hell out of sports? To keep boys from living out their dreams, including competing in sports with girls? Shame on him and his bitterness. [sarc]

Unlike “hater” Marcellus Wiley,” Biden is far more sensitive; a truly compassionate man who believes everyone deserves an equal result chance to succeed. And what better way to succeed than males competing against females in sporting events?


C’mon, all you haters. Get with the program! [more sarc]

And that “program” is Biden’s Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation, which reads in part:

Every person should be treated with respect and dignity and should be able to live without fear, no matter who they are or whom they love. [All good, sure]

Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports. [Again, no problem]

Adults should be able to earn a living and pursue a vocation knowing that they will not be fired, demoted, or mistreated because of whom they go home to or because how they dress does not conform to sex-based stereotypes. [Yup, no problem]

People should be able to access healthcare and secure a roof over their heads without being subjected to sex discrimination. All persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation. [Couldn’t agree more]

These principles are reflected in the Constitution, which promises equal protection of the laws. These principles are also enshrined in our Nation’s anti-discrimination laws, among them Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.). [Yeah, no]

Wall Street Journal writer Abigail Shrier, in an op-ed titled Joe Biden’s First Day Began the End of Girls’ Sports — An executive order rigs competition by requiring that biological boys be allowed to compete against girls, argued that Biden’s executive order was “far more ambitious” —executive overreach? — than the intent of the law.


“Amid Inauguration Day talk of shattered glass ceilings, on Wednesday President Biden delivered a body blow to the rights of women and girls: the Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation.

“On day one, Mr. Biden placed all girls’ sports and women’s safe spaces in the crosshairs of the administrative state.


“Any school that receives federal funding—including nearly every public high school—must either allow biological boys who self-identify as girls onto girls’ sports teams or face administrative action from the Education Department.

“If this policy were to be broadly adopted in anticipation of the regulations that are no doubt on the way, what would this mean for girls’ and women’s sports?

I’m not an attorney specializing in such things, but again, using the Civil Rights Act to justify males competing with females in sporting events appears to be a stretch. It also seems to me that Title IX is not only more applicable but its relevance comes into play based more on what it doesn’t say than what it does say.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces, among other statutes, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance. Title IX states that:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.


Lemme illustrate, as a layman. Both of the following statements are true:

Title IX protects the right of both males and females to participate in sporting events.

Title IX does not say males and females have the right to participate on the same teams.

This, from the U.S Department of Education website:

A college or university may sponsor separate teams for men and women where selection is based on competitive skill or when the activity is a contact sport.

Contact sports under the Title IX regulation include boxing, wrestling, rugby, ice hockey, football, basketball and other sports in which the purpose or major activity involves bodily contact.

“Based on competitive skill OR when the activity is a contact sport.” Not “AND when the activity is a contact sport.”

So by implication, males are generally larger and stronger than females, thus giving them a competitive edge. Does that edge not extend, in most cases, to non-contact sports, as well? (P.S. This has ZERO to do with misogyny, and everything to do with biological reality.)

Here’s what the NCAA has to say about Title IX and athletics:

Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics:

Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play.


Progressives argue “equal opportunity to play” extends to males competing against females; critics contend that it does not.

As is the case with innumerable other examples, the Left is turning Title IX (and Title VII) on its head in the name of “progressivism.”

The competitive edge of boys unfairly competing with girls in athletics is not “progress.”

OK, RedStaters, what say you?


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos