We are now hearing from the pundits decrying about the Federal Appeals court ruling on the trans athlete case and like little parrots they are just repeating the party nonsense.
They are out there pounding the right-wing riling up their base with nothing about why the judges ruled the way they did, instead it all about “unfair advantage” boys competing on girls teams” all the usual right-wing garbage.
Federal court rejects challenge from female athletes to Connecticut transgender sports policy
Federal appeals court 'unpersuaded' by arguments against letting biological males who identify as female compete on girls' and women's sports teams
And they dragged in Caitlyn Jenner.
This is a major lost for the Alliance Defending Freedom who represents the plaintiffs, the ruling was based in part on the Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board and Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia cases. The Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board was about Title IX applying to trans students and Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia case reaffirmed that Title VII also applies to trans people at work. You can bet your bottom dollar that the ADF will appeal to the Supreme Court. But… (You always know that there is a but.) it is a new court since the those rulings.
So back to the Connecticut ruling.
The Hill wrote about the case, the federal court judge ruled that the case was…
A district judge last year dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction was “moot” because Miller and Yearwood were no longer high school students and no other transgender athletes were set to compete against the cisgender athletes the following season.
And the ADF appealed the case and the three judge panel just ruled Friday on the case.
On Friday, the three-judge panel ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims were unfounded because, “on numerous occasions,” they had placed first in various track and field events, even while competing against Miller and Yearwood.
“Plaintiffs simply have not been deprived of a ‘chance to be champions,’” the panel wrote.
In other words the three judges also said that there was no “injuries” that the plaintiffs sustained. The ACLU went into more detail in the ruling.
On behalf of Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller, two transgender young women, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation of Connecticut defended the transgender youth participation policy of the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) in Soule et al v. CT Association of Schools et al, the nation’s first federal court case challenging such a policy.
In today’s ruling, the Second Circuit ruled the claims that cisgender girls were denied opportunities or championships are moot and unfounded, ultimately ruling they lacked standing to challenge the CIAC’s policy. The court noted that, on numerous occasions, the cisgender plaintiffs placed first in various events, even sometimes when competing against Yearwood and Miller. The court also affirmed discrimination against transgender students violates Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs, aligning today’s ruling with the Supreme Court’s ruling on Title VII in Bostock v. Clayton County.
“Today’s ruling is a critical victory for fairness, equality, and inclusion,” said Joshua Block, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “The court rejected the baseless zero-sum arguments presented by the opposition to this policy and ultimately found transgender girls have as much a right to play as cisgender girls under Title IX. This critical victory strikes at the heart of political attacks against transgender youth while helping ensure every young person has the right to play.”
Basically the court said so you played against trans athletes so what? How did it hurt you? You went on to the college of your choice and got a sports scholarship, what’s the harm.
The case wasn't based on if it was unfair but rather what was the injury playing against trans athletes? This is a hollow victory for us, the case wasn’t ruled on whether it is discriminating to allow trans athletes to compete but rather the standing of the plaintiffs’ complaint. The court ruling was it didn’t matter that they ran against trans athletes because they won other other track events and went on to college with sport scholarships.
My little part…
Along with PFLAG we submitted an Amicus Curiae brief to the court. As the Executive Director of Connecticut TransAdvoacy Coalition I was asked to give a statement for the brief and basically I said that denying trans athletes the ability to compete would deny then the advantages and leadership skills that sports teaches.
No comments:
Post a Comment