DOJ releases statement on transgender athletes competing against females, calls it ‘fundamentally unfair’

Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE.


(Photo by Leslie Plaza Johnson/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)

The Department of Justice has formally entered into the fight for women’s rights by filing a statement in support of an Idaho law that will stop “transgender women” from interfering in female sports.

Allowing biological males to compete in all-female sports is fundamentally unfair to female athletes,” Attorney General William P. Barr said in a statement Friday.

Under the Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause allows Idaho to recognize the physiological differences between the biological sexes in athletics. Because of these differences, the Fairness Act’s limiting of certain athletic teams to biological females provides equal protection.”

Signed into law by Idaho Gov. Brad Little, a Republican, in late March, the “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act” states that “[a]thletic teams or sports designated for females, women, or girls shall not be open to students of the male sex.”

It’s slated to go into effect on July 1st but has been challenged by a lawsuit from the ironically named American Civil Liberties Union and the Legal Voice.

“This limitation is based on the same exact interest that allows the creation of sex-specific athletic teams in the first place — namely, the goal of ensuring that biological females have equal athletic opportunities,” Barr’s statement continued.

“Single-sex athletics is rooted in the reality of biological differences between the sexes and should stay rooted in objective biological fact.”

Objective biological fact indeed.

Because of how biological science functions, men tend to be stronger than women. Thus, the Fairness Act only runs in one direction.

“The Fairness Act does not contain a comparable limitation for biological females who wish to participate on a team designated for biological males,” the DOJ noted.

This makes sense because while there have been numerous cases of “transgender women” and “transgender girls” grossly outperforming (and sometimes hurting) women and girls alike, there have been virtually no cases of “transgender men” and “transgender boys” doing the same to their genuine male counterparts.

The reason why can be learned about in more detail below:

In suing to block the Fairness Act, the ACLU and Legal Voice reportedly claimed the law would violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against men in dresses. In its Friday press release, the DOJ disputed this dubious allegation.

“[T]he United States explains that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution does not require States to abandon their efforts to provide biological women with equal opportunity to compete for, and enjoy the life-long benefits that flow from, participation in school athletics in order to accommodate the team preferences of transgender athletes,” the DOJ argued.

Put differently, the Constitution does not require Idaho to provide the special treatment plaintiffs request, under which biological males are allowed to compete against biological females if and only if the biological males are transgender.”

And special treatment is exactly what the transgender community have sought, much to the dismay of biological women like, say, author J.K. Rowling.

Following the DOJ’s announcement Friday, ACLU of Idaho legal director Ritchie Eppink pushed back by citing literally nothing.

“The Trump administration has been attacking trans folks in the United States since basically inauguration day,” he reportedly said. “It’s not surprising they made this a part of their anti-trans agenda as well.”

In legal terms, what he said means nothing. There was no rebuttal, there were no facts, there was no logic. There was simply the accusation that the Trump administration is pursuing an “anti-trans” agenda by upholding women’s rights.

Conversely, Alliance Defending Freedom legal counsel Christiana Holcomb released her own statement in support of the DOJ — and unlike Eppink’s statement, hers contained legitimate arguments.

“The DOJ correctly points out that the Constitution’s ‘Equal Protection Clause allows Idaho to recognize the average physiological differences between the biological sexes in athletics’ and to refuse to give special treatment to males who demand access to girls’ teams,” she said.

“By protecting all-girls’ sports, the state is ensuring that female athletes continue to enjoy equal opportunities to compete for and enjoy the life-long benefits that flow from school athletics. That’s good news for our clients and all female athletes who simply seek fairness in sports.”

Vivek Saxena

Comments

Latest Articles