Why Don’t More Women Take a Stand for Girls?
As many of you know, Arizona Women of Action has joined the fight to defend the “Save Women’s Sports Act”, the law enacted in 2022 to protect the fairness and safety of Arizona girls and women in public sports. We, along with three individual moms, have filed a Motion to Intervene in a lawsuit against our state (represented by our State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Horne, because our Attorney General refuses to defend Arizona law). We believe someone needs to stand up for girls and women in Arizona—and who better than Arizona Women of Action, representing some 17,000 followers and subscribers, a majority of whom are women; many moms and grandmothers.
The case has been grossly mischaracterized by left-wing and even some more centrist news sources as a fight for ‘inclusivity’ versus ‘anti-LGBT’. Nothing could be further from truth. This is not anti-anybody. This is purely PRO-girls and women.
So why won’t the ‘inclusivity’ crowd see the irony-- that they are ANTI-inclusivity! That if anything, they are misogynistic when it comes to protecting girls and women? Protecting females was the intent of Title IX, but now that has been twisted by some crazy mental gymnastics to mislead the public and even the courts. The District Judge—a woman, in fact-- last week ruled to allow the two plaintiffs to go ahead and compete on girls’ teams while the court case is being decided. They are two biological males, aged 11 and 15, who have been monitored for puberty or on puberty blockers to help them live their lives as females.
At issue is whether the puberty blockers render these students to have equal physical abilities as the biological females they wish to compete with and against.
To be clear, Arizona Women of Action cares about EVERY child. We have deep compassion for any child struggling with their gender identity, or any other life struggle. We promote work to serve all children, struggling families, homeless, and human trafficking victims.
We stand by the purpose of the Save Women’s Sports law, and we stand by Superintendent Tom Horne, who is the defendant in this case. Sup. Horne writes our guest blog this week, explaining to our subscribers WHY he is fighting for Arizona girls, and what the issue is about. Thank you, for sharing your message with us, Sup. Horne! ~ Kim
Biological Boys Should Not Compete in Girls’ Sports
When I was in the legislature, I voted for all bills extending civil rights to LGBT people, and I am very sympathetic with people who believe they were born in the wrong body. However, I do not believe that biological boys should compete in girls’ sports.
There have been many newspaper accounts about girls who work hard on their sports, hope to make the varsity team, have dreams of a college scholarship, or maybe even the Olympics. They are then forced to compete against a biological male, which they cannot do. Their dreams are shattered, and they are devastated. This is a cosmic injustice. I am concerned about the girls who are being affected.
In this Court case, the plaintiff did not seek to hold our law (prohibiting biological boys from playing in girls’ sports) to be declared unconstitutional on its face. Rather, it was what we call an “as applied” challenge. That means, it only applies to the two plaintiffs, who, at the ages of about 11 and 15, are being monitored for puberty to begin puberty blockers or are currently on puberty blockers. It may also apply, by analogy, to others similarly situated. But it would certainly not apply to all other athletes.
Nevertheless, I am defending this case, and the constitutionality of our law, with everything I have.
That is because I believe this is a first step in which the plaintiffs hope to get momentum, and ultimately enable all boys to participate in girls’ sports if they declare that they are a girl. At the University of Pennsylvania, a biological boy, who was ranked #462 in NCAA Men’s Swimming in national rankings, declared he was a woman, and an NCAA Women’s championship. The girls who were denied those championships have been treated very unfairly.
In this case, the plaintiffs are claiming that puberty blockers make it so that the boys do not have an advantage over girls. We presented a number of peer reviewed (objectively verified) studies, showing that even pre-puberty boys do have an advantage over girls. We presented a declaration from someone who coached elementary school for over 30 years, and observed that. In fact, readers could ask any elementary school coach, and they will tell you that even pre-puberty boys are better on average than girls at sports.
The other side did not have any peer reviewed studies to support their position. They had a doctor who has performed something like 500 transitions on children, and who has a financial interest. He expressed the opinion, off the top of his head, not supported by any peer reviewed studies, that the boys did not have an advantage over the girls. He has no way to know whether the boys have an advantage over girls, because he is in his medical office, not out on the field. Our witness is a coach, and could observe the advantage of pre-puberty boys over girls. And, as I mentioned, all of the peer reviewed studies supported our position.
You can ask the coach of any elementary school and they will tell you the same thing.
I will continue to fight this case with everything I have. The plaintiffs sued four defendants. Three of them conceded, agreeing to the position that boys should be able to compete in girls’ sports. I was the only defendant to oppose the plaintiffs. If necessary, I will appeal to the United States Supreme Court. We will win there.