I recently read an article in the Wall Street Journal, of a high school athlete, Selina Soule, in Connecticut who was filing a civil rights complaint with the Education Department over males competing in female sports. The issue comes from Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The part in question reads “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.” The question revolves around what is the definition of sex.
In the article I read it says, “Presumably, the legislators who passed Title IX in 1972 understood sex to be anatomical.” And I would say that presumably, that is correct. The idea of sexual orientation was strictly controlled by laws making LGBT illegal. Around the same time that Title IX was passed, the movements for LGBT were just starting to grow for their allowance and freedom. This idea that a person would identify and participate in another gender’s activities as that other gender would never have been considered at the time as the LGBT community was focused on not being arrested or persecuted, and things like sports participation were not even close to being a thought let alone a priority.
Today, however, that has changed. Soule says, “It’s just really frustrating and heartbreaking, because we all train extremely hard to shave off just fractions of a second off of our time. And these athletes can do half the amount of work that we do, and it doesn’t matter. We have no chance of winning.” The article goes on to say, “The results speak for themselves. Since Connecticut’s athletic conference enacted its liberal gender-identity policy, two men have won 15 women’s state championships—titles that were held by 10 different Connecticut girls the previous year.”
I could see this becoming one of those really important court cases that goes on to set a precedent for the next 50+ years. The problem with this is that it again, as similar situation have many times before, gives the courts too much power in legislating problems away that the legislature is too busy being politically correct to take care of themselves. There are not too many things that I feel that I have a solution for, but this is one issue that I am pretty dang sure that I have a solution and that I am right, and would love to see the legislature take up.
Instead of trying to define sex, gender, and what people identify as to make laws that ultimately can change because of how those definitions are always changing (Facebook has over 58 gender options for a person to identify as), we should simply base things on genetic code. You are either base XX or base XY. Yes, there are extra chromosomes, and occasionally missing chromosomes, but the simple fact remains, a Y chromosome makes a person bigger, more athletic, and except in rare mutations, they have a pair. If we were to change all designations of gender, sex, or whatever in legal documents to either X (no Y) or Y (there is a Y) based on scientific chromosomes at birth it would, in my view, solve every problem. The legal identification is separate from a self-identified one, because last time I checked, we have no way to change a single chromosome in the human body, let alone all of them.
Charles Horikami is a Social Studies Teacher at BLMS, and the Legislative District 32 Chair for the Idaho State Republican Party. The views expressed are not representative of the BLSD or of the Idaho State Republican Party. He can be contacted at email@example.com and welcomes all comments and critiques.