It's a tale of two states, separated by a line on a map.
California and Arizona share a border, but not much else. California is a deep blue, Democrat-dominated state, thanks in no small part to the rigging of its jungle primary system. Arizona is a red state fading to purple, although there's hope that Arizona voters may reverse that trend.
And, of course, Arizona doesn't allow boys to compete in girls' sports, or at least, meddling courts notwithstanding, they are trying not allow this. Meanwhile, California is doubling down on stupid in this issue. It's worth comparing the two from a sanity standpoint.
The Protect Girls’ Sports in Arizona Act (HCR2003) is from state Rep. Selina Bliss, R-Prescott. Bliss said it reinstates and strengthens the Save Women’s Sports Act of 2022 (Senate Bill 1165), which bans transgender athletes from competing in girls' sports. Implementation of SB1165 has been delayed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
“What my ballot referral will do to complement that is to expand the provisions of SB1165 by including all schools and sports associations, so there’s the difference,” Bliss told The Center Square. “It gets it out of the legal court tie up, which is supposed to be determined next year, but it takes it straight to the voters to take care of this once and for all.”
It also helps Arizona’s Republican-controlled Legislature avoid a possible veto by Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs. Republicans don't have enough seats to override her vetoes.
Arizona may yet have a chance to pass this initiative. Then again, Arizona voted to put Democrat Katie Hobbs in the governor's office, so there's that.
Here's how the initiative would work:
“You need a birth certificate if there’s doubt of the gender,” Bliss told The Center Square. “It would designate, not divide, sports teams as male, female and co-ed, so a biological male could compete in a male sport or a co-ed sport, but not a female sport.”
That makes good sense, but once again, can we dispense with the "biological male" hooraw? Sex is a matter of biology. "Biological male" is an unnecessary redundancy. These people are male, and there's an end to it.
Arizona's legislature, in passing the Save Women's Sports Act of 2022, has at least shown some sanity in this matter. But their neighbors?
California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined 12 Democratic attorneys general on Tuesday, submitting an amicus brief opposing a legal challenge to Minnesota’s policies that allow transgender athletes to participate in female sports.
The brief was submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in Female Athletes United v. Ellison. The case challenges Minnesota’s statewide policy permitting transgender athletes to compete in female sports.
The brief argues that Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination includes discrimination based on gender identity. It said excluding transgender athletes would violate the statute.
The amicus brief notes that courts have repeatedly held that policies inclusive of transgender students are consistent with Title IX’s language, which forbids exclusion “on the basis of sex.”
Reality is a harsh mistress, and here's the reality that California's Rob Bonta doesn't seem to have assimilated: Sex isn't whatever someone imagines it to be. These kids can identify as a zebra if they like, but they won't suddenly grow stripes. A boy can "identify" as a girl, but he still has an X and a Y chromosome, and all of the physical advantages that go with that. California is engaging in some Richter-scale obfuscation here, and we can only hope that the 8th Circuit slaps this stupidity down.
Read More: THE ESSEX FILES: The Cost of Speaking Truth in Women's Sports
Heroes of Women's Sports: Oregon Stars Celebrated for Courageous Stand
A list of the states signing on to this is revealing:
In filing the amicus brief, Bonta joins the attorneys general of Washington, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
You don't say.
I happen to have a pretty good background in these issues; unlike a certain Supreme Court Justice I could name, I am a biologist, by education. Here are the relevant facts:
Humans are mammals. As mammals, we are sexually bipolar, male and female. Sex is not determined at birth. It is encoded, genetically, at conception, and the differences between male and female exist from conception. There are a few very rare genetic disorders that can cause sexual ambiguities, generally involving a polyploidy (more than the usual number of chromosomes) of the X and/or Y chromosomes, but other than that, humans are conceived, born, and mature as male or female.
Humans also show a fair degree of sexual dimorphism; men are bigger, stronger, faster than women, they have more endurance, are more resistant to traumatic injury, they have greater cardiovascular capacity, and more fast-twitch muscle fibers. These things give men a positive and undeniable advantage over women in sports; this makes allowing men and boys to compete in women's and men's sports hideously, grossly unfair. These advantages, we should remember, also exist before puberty.
These are facts. Even California's Democratic Governor, the impeccably coiffed Gavin Newsom, has been forced to admit this.
Arizona looks to be showing some sanity in this issue. California, not so much.
It seems crazy, doesn't it, that we're still forced to debate this issue? These differences between boys and girls, between men and women, have been known since there have been boys and girls, men and women. Yet we're still forced to argue the biological reality. I'd like to think that the coming New Year will see this issue put to rest once and for all, but I suspect we'll still be arguing it in 2027 and 2028.
