SCOTUS Okays Restrictions on Teen Girl Athletes

The Supreme Court has upheld the Idaho and West Virginia bans on trans girls in school sports.

This means trouble for all teen girls playing sports, and we haven't seen the end of the legal attacks.

The ruliong establishes that states may institute such bans. But they did not answer the question, "Do states have to ban trans girls from athletics in order to protect Title IX." We can fully expect that there are already people working to put that question in front of the court.

In the meantime, this ruling will do plenty of damage on its own. 

For trans girls (and it's always trans girls, because the culture panic crowd never gets excited about trans boys-- do they think that becoming a male is admirable but giving up male-hood in order to become a girl is terribly wrong) this means that no matter what they've been through to make gtheir decisions, no matter how widely accepted they are by their peers, the school must deny their identity and bar them from activities that give them joy and connection in their lives. A bunch of grownups have gotten together to look a teeneger in the face and call her names and deny her life. That is messed up.

But anti-trans laws have impact far beyond the tiny number of actual teen girls affected. Let me offer an example or two.

Here's a story from Utah about one of the results of the state's girls track and field competition:

After one competitor “outclassed” the rest of the field in a girls’ state-level competition last year, the parents of the competitors who placed second and third lodged a complaint with the Utah High School Activities Association calling into question the winner’s gender.

Congratulations unnamed female athlete! For your dominance in your sport, you win the chance for the state and your school district to dig through your records to prove that you have always been a girl. 

That's what a trans ban gets you-- any female athlete who is too strong, too dominant, too good, or just too butch, is now subject to a challenge from any disgruntled parent whose daughter lost (second, third, toed for fifth, whatever). 

Ohio almost had an odious bill when the House advanced the Ohio version of a Save Women's Sports Act that allowed losers to burden winners not just with the burden to prove their adequate femaleness, but to do it by way of testosterone levels, dna testing or "participant’s internal and external reproductive anatomy." Congratulations on your win, Bethany. Now, the state needs you to submit to a little physical exam.

That goodness Governor DeWine saw through to the real issue here:

The welfare of those young people needs to be absolutely most important to this issue, whether that young person is transgender or not.

Other states are not so lucky.  Oklahoma and South carolina did get a Save Women's Sports Act passed into law. That one gives any female athlete who thinks she's been boxed out or beaten and deprived of benefits to sue the school, and she's got up to two years to sue. Oklahoma's law doesn't offer any guidance about how the school is supposed to defend itself in court and what demands for "proof" they can place on their athletes. 

And that's before we evenb get to states with laws saying that students must dress in ways the People In Charge deem appropriate for their "gender at birth."

Or take the Ted Cruz anti-trans ad from 2024. The ad shows images of female athletes at a track meet, while a caption says his opponent U.S. Rep Colin Allred has "voted to allow boys in girls sports." How messed up is this ad? Let's count the ways.

1) The track meet is taking place in Oregon.

2) Despite the implication of the caption, the girls are not trans.

3) Nobody with Cruz's campaign asked for permission to use the girls' images.

Anti-trans laws don't just declare open season on trans teens--which would be bad enough--but also declare an open season on all teenage girls. 

We'll see if subsequent decisions make this situation even worse. As of right now, it's bad enough.

 

Ten Federal Voucher Myths

Jorge Elozar, head of Democrats for Education Reform (a group started by hedge fund managers to convince Democrats to support education privatization), has been lobbying hard for the federal voucher program, with most of their talking points gathered into a single post here offering ten reasons that the Dems should not repeal the federal vouchers; the list corresponds to the reasons DFER thinks Democratic governors should sign on.

Let's look at the list.

1. It helps public school students.

Note that this is different from the claim that it helps public schools, which is slightly more honest than Elorza's suggestion elsewhere that public schools might benefit from this. 

But as usual, the list of expenditures includes things that public school students should and do provide, like transportation, special education services, and career training. This only makes sense if the public schools somehow manage to off-load some services to federal funding, which would be bad news for local control and for students who need those services. But it would be good news for those policy leaders looking for ways to dismantle public education and sell off the parts.

2. It Can Bring Significant New Resources Into Public Education

Again, the hint public school systems will benefit from these programs. But come on- if the feds really wanted to inject funding into public schools, it would be far easier to just offer tax credits for supporting a public school. A complicated set up with "scholarship granting organizations" is only useful if you are trying to launder public money so that you can legally give it to a religious organization.

"Scholarship organizations can support services that school districts often struggle to provide at scale, creating new educational opportunities without requiring states to raise taxes or cut other programs." Again, if this were an actual goal, the feds could devise much better ways to do it. Instead they are busy closing down the Department of Education and promising to send education back to the states, by which they mean sending back responsibility for funding any programs the feds don't like.

3. It Helps Close the Out-of-School Enrichment Gap

So federal vouchers will get poor kids SAT coaches and violin lessons? Maybe. But I'm waiting to see regulations that actually limit voucher use to non-wealthy students. Otherwise, I expect that these vouchers will follow the common pattern of mostly supporting families that are not wealth-impaired.

4. It Advances Democratic Priorities Like High-Impact Tutoring

Maybe that is a Democratic priority? It shouldn't be. Two-sigma tutoring is a fabrication, a snare and a delusion that has been thoroughly debunked. 

But even if it weren't an exercise in unicorn farming, please note the usual privatizer shift here, turning beneficial tutoring from something the system provides for everyone into a commodity that you are free to shop for on your own. This is right in line with the choice movement-- "Your child's education should be your responsibility, not society's. But here's a little voucher check to take some of the sting off when we wash our hands of you."

5. It Expands Opportunity for Students With Disabilities

Again, why are we touting a system based on the idea that families of these students should have to go find necessary services on their own. If only there were a program, like a federal program-- a sort of  Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and if only that program were fully funded. I bet that would be a far better solution than handing parents a check and saying, "Good luck! Buh-bye!"

6. The Fiscal Impact Is Small Relative to the Federal Budget

Compared to the massive trillion dollar holes blown in the budget by this administration, the amount that this will add to the deficit isn't so bad. So...yay?

DFER skips the other financial impact, like the estimate from American Federation for Children, a severely pro-privatization group, estimates that $300 per child will have to be spent marketing the tax shelter part of this program to convince people to contribute. 

7. It Represents an Investment in America’s Future

Does it? DFER argues that we should welcome throwing more money at education. "The ROI from helping a child learn to read, master algebra, recover from pandemic learning loss, or access specialized support far exceeds the program’s cost," Elorza writes, without asking why the importance of these programs might call for an actual federal investment instead of a tax shelter that is designed to help public tax dollars flow to private schools. Did you forget that was the purpose of the federal voucher program? Elorza is glad you did.

8. It Is Popular With Voters

You know a good way to find out what voters want? Let them vote on it. Except they're not going to do that because school vouchers have never once been voted into place by voters. Voters, given the choice, have rejected vouchers every time. Which is why they are rarely given the choice. Every voucher program in this country was birthed by legislative shenanigans.

You want to show me how popular your program is? Don't show me the results of carefully crafted polling questions. Let people vote.

9. Democrats Need a New Direction on K-12 Education

This one is just whacky. "Ten years ago," says Elorza, " Democrats were the undisputed party of education." I will not dispute for a second that the Democrats lost their claim to be an education party, though I would say that it happened a lot sooner than ten years ago. Ten years ago would be when the GOP started pushing the exact same policy that DFER is arguing for today. 

How did they lose their education mojo? By listening to people like DFER and pushing policies like test and punish, privatization, and generally offering right wing policies with a blue towel draped over their shoulder. But DFER was founded explicitly to perform the "inside job" of getting Dems to fall in line with the privatization movement, and they have been consistent ever since, repeatedly trying out versions of "If you were a true and smart Democrat you would totally want to back school choice." And also "Public schools suck because of the evil teachers union." 

Do the Democrats need a new direction in education? They surely do, but following the privatization policies of Betsy DeVos is neither new nor win Dems education plaudits.

10. Democrats Should Be the Party of Opportunity

To be clear, Elorza is arguing that the federal vouchers expand educational opportunity. The questions he skips are: what kind of opportunity, for whom, and at what cost? Watch this bit of misdirection:

Families are asking for more options, more support, more tutoring, more enrichment, and more help for their children. The FSTC provides all of those things.

This skips over the most important question, which is what would be the best way for the feds to provide those things? Because this isn't it, and to pretend that this program, carefully designed as a tax shelter than funds private schools, is somehow a big boon for public schools and public school families is baloney. 

The DFER argument is like saying, "Yes, an AK-47 assault rifle will let you mow down a bunch of fleshy, vulnerable human beings, but let's not be hasty. You could do useful things with it, too, like cut down shrubbery or open a door you accidentally locked. Really, I don't understand why you don't fully embrace the AK-47 bush trimmer."

Elorza also throws in a bonus myth-- governors should opt in "to keep resources in the state." In that construction, "keep" is doing some heavy lifting, since we are talking about redirecting funds that were already bound for the bottomless money pit that is DC. 

DFER is presenting a backwards-engineered argument. They start with the policy they want to pursue; now they've searched for an argument, landing on "This will solve Problem X" rather than start with Problem X and asking what a good solution for that would be. DFER wants to dismantle and privatize education, and federal vouchers are set up to further that cause of converting a shared societal responsibility into an individual shopping problem.

None of this, unfortunately, means that more states won't sign up for some free federal money. The bare minimum we can hope for is some actual guardrails and restrictions on how the money would be used. Maybe even an actual out loud conversation about the steady erosion of the country's promise of public education. But I don't expect any of that from DFER.