"No Chance In Hell"

For a few years, there has been a fierce battle raging in the arena of scholastic athletic competition.  At issue is the participation of transgender athletes, and whether they can deprive a biological woman of any chance at victory.   

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit just said that they can. Let's look at the ruling in this matter, and break down the associated opinion (1).

First, the Court said that the plaintiffs do not have "standing" to sue the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (who are the defendants in this case; Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools) (2, 3).

In this, it is argued that the plaintiffs did not suffer any "injury in fact", and were not "deprived of a chance to be champions", as their complaint alleges.

I find this to be an asinine statement.

Biologically speaking, it is a scientific fact that males are bigger, stronger, and faster than women.  Therefore, a female athlete has almost no chance to defeat a male or transgender counterpart.

The two genders are simply not on a "level playing field"; there is nothing that judges and politicians can do that will ever change this. Be that as it may, it seems like the Court believes that this is simply hyperbole (see definition 1), and an overstatement of the situation.

It appears that they are talking out of both sides of their mouths; on page 21 of the opinion, the Court actually acknowledges that injury may have been done. Nevertheless, they assert that "not every harm is an injury".

Excuse me? By definition, when you "harm" someone, you cause them "physical or mental injury" (3).

Thus, on this subject, the Court appears to have taken leave of all sense of logic.

Regarding standing, the Court also said that even if there was an injury, it cannot be redressed by granting the relief that plaintiffs seek.

To bolster their argument, the Court cited precedent in the case of Steel Co. v Citizens for a Better Environment (1998), as such:

"Relief that does not remedy the injury suffered cannot bootstrap a plaintiff into federal court".

Here, the Court conveniently ignores the very crux (see definition 2) of the matter, and the fact that a ruling in the plaintiff's favor would force CIAC to re-write their record books. It is exactly this outcome, and this "remedy", that plaintiffs seek.

As such, I must again scratch my head at the Court's conclusion.

Finally, the Court said that the plaintiffs failed to "state a claim upon which relief (could) be granted".

In doing so, the Court cited precedent in a case that they refer to as "Pennhurst", saying that in order for plaintiff's claim to advance, it must be shown that the defendant "had adequate notice that they could be liable (under Title IX)".

To this, the Court stated that "OCR" (the US Department of Education's "Office of Civil Rights") "never clearly provided that allowing transgender students to participate...violated Title IX".

This is, however, incorrect. Under the presidency of Donald Trump, the Office did in fact state this as a matter of policy. This is something that the Court itself acknowledged, specifically in a footnote to page 24 of the opinion.

Therefore, it seems that CIAC did indeed have "adequate notice" of possible liability. Accordingly, the plaintiffs did in fact "state a claim", and the Court's argument must fail.

Obviously, I am shocked/appalled/outraged by the decision of the Appeals Court in this matter. It seems that the honorable judges have said that there was no harm done, and that even if there was, there's nothing that the Court can do about it.

By ruling in this manner, the Court has effectively declared that high school and college women's sports don't matter.

There are but two methods by which this injustice may be rectified.

One is through the highest court in the land, the United States Supreme Court. The other is through the State of Connecticut passing a law saying that transgender persons who wish to compete athletically must do so based on their biological status.

While there is a small chance for the former to occur, the latter event doesn't seem likely.

And that leaves biological females with "no chance in hell".

Definition 1 -

Hyperbole: Noun, an exaggeration ("such as 'mile-high ice cream cones") (4).

Definition 2 -

Crux: Noun, "a main or central feature (as of an argument)" (5).

Sources:

1. “2nd Circuit Rules Against Protecting Female Athletes, ADF Will Continue to Fight for Future of Women’s Sports.” Alliance Defending Freedom, 16 Dec. 2022, adflegal.org/press-release/2nd-circuit-rules-against-protecting-female-athletes-adf-will-continue-fight-future. Accessed 17 Dec. 2022.

2. Kiefer, Christiana. “Soule V. Connecticut Association of Schools.” Alliance Defending Freedom, 16 Dec. 2022, adflegal.org/case/soule-v-connecticut-association-schools. Accessed 17 Dec. 2022.

3. Chin, et al. Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. 16 Dec. 2022, adflegal.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/Soule-v-Connecticut-Association-of-Schools-2022-12-16-2nd-Circuit-Opinion_0.pdf. Accessed 17 Dec. 2022.

4. “Hyperbole.” The Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, 7 Dec. 2022, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hyperbole. Accessed 17 Dec. 2022.  

5. “Crux.” The Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, 16 Dec. 2022, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crux. Accessed 17 Dec. 2022.