In a Supreme Court Amicus Brief, Nearly Two-Thirds of the Democratic Women’s Caucus Endorsed Boys Playing Girls’ Sports and Using Girls’ Locker Rooms

Then they asked Beverley Talbott to share her story.

Hi friends, and welcome, newcomers!

After my first 100 Stronger Women stories (tra-la), Substack went a little nuts on #101 this morning. I’ll spare you the glitchy details - but do forgive me if you already received this. It was published yesterday by the LGB Courage Coalition and I tried to cross-post with their permission, but then… never mind. :-)

Please consider supporting their work.

The story, by my friend Beverley Talbott (who wrote for Women’s Sports and Fitness when I worked there in the 80s) is her response to a Democratic Women’s Caucus survey calling for input from women about “your experience as a woman” and “your rights as a woman” and more. However, by “women” they surely mean “including men who want to be granted all rights and privileges of women” — and therein lies the problem. I’m sharing Beverley’s brilliant response below.

---

by Beverley Talbott

I received this survey from the Democratic Women’s Caucus, whose members include all female Democrats in the House of Representatives plus Sarah McBride.

Here are the survey prompts, followed by my feedback. Reader, please give them yours.

1. Please share your story here:

I’ve been a Democrat for a long time. I campaigned for Hillary in Nevada, both the primary and the general. We won Nevada for her. I gave Hillary more money than I could afford, but I did get to meet her and chat a bit. I canvassed door-to-door on state Democratic campaigns and joined two Democratic clubs in San Francisco, where I live. I voted for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election -- until 2024. What changed?

I started to wise up about how you, Democrats, have betrayed your core constituency: women. You wrote laws that put men in women’s prisons, men in women’s sports, and men in women’s private spaces. You supported or did not oppose making harmful, irreversible so-called gender affirming care (puberty blockers, hormones, surgeries) available to children. You ignored searing testimony from whistleblowers who witnessed the harm and from young people who suffered it.

Still, I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Trump or RFK Jr in 2024. I did a larky write-in for Kara Dansky, a former civil rights attorney for the ACLU who warned you about all this stuff back in 2023, and even earlier.

Recently, nearly two-thirds of your caucus (62 out of 96) joined other Democrats to file an amicus brief in West Virginia v. BPJ, a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court. You argue that men and boys who identify as female should be able to compete in the female sports category. I have some thoughts on your arguments (quoted below) that I will share with you.

“Categorical bans harm all girls and women through harassment and policing of children’s reproductive biology.”

Banning males from the female sports category would result in “harassment” of women and girls? Say what?

“Enforcement may result in nearly unspeakable intrusions on privacy,” your brief intones, “as minor students would need to undergo exams or genital inspections to prove that they are on a sports team corresponding with their reproductive biology.”

Just, no.

High-school athletic associations and the NCAA already require an annual pre-participation physical examination (PPE) performed by a licensed physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant. The clinician marks “male” or “female” based on a routine external examination. Schools also use original birth certificates and other medical records (like prior PPEs) to confirm sex.

This system has been in place for decades throughout the U.S. It’s a medically routine and parent-accepted process.

Most states already ban males from competing in K-12 sports designated for females, and so does the NCAA. Those bans cover thousands of schools and millions of athletes. Yet your brief cites only three incidents, two in Utah and one in Florida, that supposedly show how such bans will lead to invasive scrutiny of all girls’ bodies.

Except they don’t. Even the few cases you cite don’t involve such scrutiny. All three were resolved through checks of existing medical records and birth certificates. These cases did involve some overreach and privacy concerns. However, the missteps were roundly, publicly condemned by school boards, state officials, and high school athletic associations. Heads rolled, policies were clarified.

These rare incidents resulted from poor implementation of the law, not the law itself. Misapplying a rule doesn’t prove the rule is unconstitutional any more than an isolated mishandling of a Title IX sexual harassment complaint invalidates Title IX. Unfounded complaints occur under any eligibility rule—age, weight, residency, grades—yet we don’t eliminate those rules.

Redefining sex to include gender identity not only forces girls to compete with males but to share intimate spaces with them, increasing the risks of true harassment and assault – not the hysterical kind your brief conjures up but the kind documented in a 2024 UN report on violence against women and girls in sports.

Also, it’s really quite rich that a bunch of congresswomen filed a brief in West Virginia v. B.P.J. arguing that keeping boys out of girls’ sports would result in “harassment” of girls when another amicus brief in the very same case documents how B.P.J. sexually harassed a female teammate.

As you know, B.P.J. is the male athlete in West Virginia v. B.P.J. who wants to keep competing on the girls’ track team (where he regularly outperforms the girls) and keep using their locker rooms. A.C. is a girl on the same team as B.P.J. According to A.C.’s brief:

During the end of A.C.’s eighth-grade year, about two to three times per week B.P.J. would look at her and say “suck my d***.” … A.C. heard B.P.J. say the same thing to her other teammates. B.P.J. also made other, more explicit sexual statements that felt threatening to A.C. At times, B.P.J. told her quietly, “I’m gonna stick my d*** into your pu***.” B.P.J. sometimes added “and in your a**”.

These comments, made in the locker room…caused A.C. deep distress. She felt confused about why a male who had been allowed onto the girls’ team because he identified as a female would still speak to her in a way that no other girl had ever spoken to her.

So this boy who says he’s a girl is acting like, surprise, a boy – in the worst way. Understandably, A.C. is uncomfortable about continuing with track and field.

A.C. is reluctant to continue her participation in track and field, given that it requires her to endure unwanted, threatening sexual comments and to change clothes, shower, and use restrooms in close proximity to the male who is making said comments.

The wish to avoid such harassment – along with a natural desire to preserve modesty and privacy – are exactly why bathrooms and changing areas for males and females are separated in the first place. Did you somehow forget that? Or do you just not care? Should A.C. and all the other girls who don’t want to shower and change alongside boys just get over it – or quit?

“Categorical bans undermine the ability of transgender students to participate in their school community…”

Again, no. Boys remain eligible to participate in boys’ sports, and girls remain eligible to participate in girls’ sports, regardless of their gender identity. The sex-based bans apply only to sports and private spaces like locker rooms and bathrooms. No matter how much your side whines that “transgender girls” are excluded from sports or the “school community” (whatever that means), a boy who calls himself a girl can play boys’ sports and do whatever else his classmates do.

Why should a boy’s claim that he’s a girl take precedence over girls’ immutable reality?

Responsibility for sorting this mess lies not with girls but with the adults in the room -- especially coaches and athletic administrators of boys’ sports – to welcome and make a place for gender nonconforming athletes.

And it is again quite rich that a bunch of congresswomen filed a brief claiming falsely that sex-based sports policies undermine transgender students’ participation when the absence of such policies demonstrably undermines female participation. When men compete in the female category, women lose team roster spots, playing time, titles, scholarships, and prize money.

Two boys competing in Connecticut high school track won 15 state girls’ titles (previously held by 9 different girls). Just two boys displaced girls from more than 85 podium finishes and other advancement opportunities, according to a Title IX suit by female athletes.

HeCheated tracks results in which a male athlete has participated in a female sporting event (events labeled specifically for women or girls). In 16,650 such events at all levels, males competing individually and teams with males on them won 5,278 first place finishes and 9,125 top three finishes. Across 810 women’s teams on which a male was playing, those teams won nearly 60 percent of their games (5334 out of 8929, with 247 ties). Men have won at least $2,438,378 in prize money that otherwise would have gone to 899 women.

“Categorical bans...are not substantially related to an important government interest.”

So the government interest represented by TItle IX and the 14th Amendment isn’t “important”?

Sex-segregated programs ensure fairness and safety for females, which relates substantially to Title IX’s core remit and to the government interest in remedying sex discrimination against women. Sex-segregated sports account for men’s inherent physiological advantages over women — strength, speed, power, size — and for risk of injury to women because of these advantages.

As decided in Tennessee v. Cardona, “sex” for the purposes of Title IX means what it did when the statute was written — biological sex, not gender identity. Expanding that definition to include “gender identity” (males are females if they say they are) erodes the very protections that Title IX is meant to provide. Males already have their own category, and females are not displacing them (duh). But males do displace females on teams and in events reserved for females, which results in a denial of equal opportunity under the law. You’re a bunch of smart lawyers, why won’t you acknowledge this?

“The recent failures to amend Title IX show the weaknesses in Petitioners’ strained interpretations.”

Congressional inaction on legislation like the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act reflects the usual partisan gridlock. Your brief cites failed bills and vetoes as evidence of consensus against sex-based bans, but you conveniently overlook that more than half the states have enacted such laws.

Also, as I told you above (reread if necessary), the courts have reconfirmed that sex in Title IX means what it originally meant when Title IX was written — biological sex. So arguably, there’s no need to amend Title IX. It just needs to be enforced according to its original meaning.

2. Please share how the policies or decisions made by the Trump administration have affected you:

Trump’s executive order (EO) threatening to yank funding from schools that allow men in women’s sports and spaces caused me to jump for joy and dance a jig. I was similarly affected by the EO vowing to defund medical institutions that sterilize and remove healthy body parts from minors in the name of gender-affirming “care”.

But EOs aren’t law. They can be nullified if they’re not codified. That’s where you, with your legislative super powers, come in. Stop throwing women and girls under the bus. Stop spreading the lie that gender-affirming care saves lives and that people who oppose it are right-wing bigots. Start cleaning up what whistleblowers call the biggest medical scandal since lobotomies.

3. Do you have any questions for us?

Boy howdy.

Why do you privilege men’s feelings over women’s rights and safety?

When will you realize that 67 percent of Democratic voters disagreeing with you on the sports issue makes it an especially unfortunate hill to die on?

What is your evidence for calling pediatric gender treatments life-saving and evidence-based?

Like I said, I didn’t vote for Trump. I get why many people think he’s a dangerous ding-dong. But I can realize and admit when “the other side” is right about something. Can you?

Will you meet with members of the LGB Courage Coalition? We’re a national group of gays and lesbians, parents, and others who are concerned about the exploding numbers of young people (disproportionately same-sex attracted) who seek gender-related treatments that yield no proven benefits and cause known harm. We’ve testified before Congress and state legislatures.

If you can meet with us, how about mid-January? We’ll be in town anyway, at the Supreme Court for oral arguments in West Virginia v. BPJ on Tuesday, January 13. Let’s set a date.

***

Back to Mariah: Thoughts? I’m always curious. I’m sure Bev will be, too.