The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Who sets rules for transgender athletics?
A newly elected Georgia legislator has set the stage for likely an emotional debate over how schools and communities treat transgender student athletes. Republican Philip Singleton of Sharpsburg has introduced a bill that says public fields, stadiums and gyms can’t be used by a sports team with a transgender member.
Dubbing his House Bill 747 the “Student Athlete Protection Act,” Singleton says it fills the void created by the decision of the Georgia High School Association to abdicate responsibility for defining what a “girls’ track team” means. The association policy states: “The GHSA will honor a gender determination made by a member school. The GHSA will not make gender identity determinations nor entertain appeals of the member school’s determination.”
Singleton says Georgia needs a clear and transparent statewide policy so “every student, regardless of race, creed, gender or religion, knows exactly
who they are going to be competing against.”
Under his bill, he says, “When an athletic association says a team is for boys or a team is for girls, it means biological.”
How does Singleton define biological?
“Biology is the gender identified at birth. No one is stopping a child from living his life as a female. Athletics is about biology, not about identity, not about politics. Athletics always divides people by physical comparability. It is why we limit middle school football to middle schoolers, why there is a 10-year-old age bracket for wrestling. You can’t be a 12-year-old and compete in an 8-yearold bracket,” said Singleton.
Washington, Missouri and Tennessee are considering similar bills. Richard Woods, Georgia’s superintendent of schools, said he favors the state staying out of decisions about transgender athletes, calling Singleton’s bill “probably unnecessary. I think our coaches and the Georgia High School Association can determine what is best …”
While neither Singleton nor the GHSA knows of any conflicts in Georgia over transgender athletes, a high-profile Connecticut case has brought the question to the fore.
Three high school female school runners in Connecticut filed a Title IX complaint with the U.S. Department of Education in June contending they suffer an unfair disadvantage competing against two runners born male who now identify as female. It’s not just a matter of winning races; possible college scholarships can be at stake for them, according to the three teens. Their complaint seeks to overturn a Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference policy that permits athletes to compete based on the gender with which they identify, regardless of whether they have begun the medical transition process.
Selina Soule, one of the three Connecticut runners seeking to overturn state policy, told reporters she faces an uneven playing field racing against runners born male, saying, “We all know the outcome of the race before it even starts; it’s demoralizing. I fully support and am happy for these athletes for being true to themselves. They should have the right to express themselves in school, but athletics have always had extra rules to keep the competition fair.”
Transgender Connecticut runner Andraya Yearwood issued a statement saying, “I have known two things for most of my life: I am a girl and I love to run. There is no shortage of discrimination that I face as a young black woman who is transgender. I have to wake up every day in a world where people who look like me face so many scary and unfair things. I am lucky to live in a state that protects my rights and to have a family that supports me. It is so painful that people not only want to tear down my successes but take down the laws and policies that protect people like me.”
Robin Hines, executive director of the GHSA, said the transgender policy in place in Georgia follows guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights under the Obama White House, guidance that was then rolled back in 2017 by the Trump administration. Like most states, Georgia did not amend its policy, but Hines said a decision in the pending Connecticut case could spur a reexamination.
Hines said there have been two or three cases of Georgia transgender high school athletes who were female competing as male. In those instances, there was no perceived physical advantage and thus no controversy around their participation. “We certainly don’t want to discriminate against anybody, but we also don’t want a situation where there is an athletic imbalance where male students are participating against females,” he said.
The question has roiled the women’s athletic community, which recognizes both the need to safeguard equity and protect transgender athletes. The equity vs. inclusiveness question is thorny as physiological differences and testosterone give male athletes an edge in height, body structure and muscle mass.
Those advantages ebb after a male begins hormone suppression therapy, which is why some state high school athletics associations allow boys to compete in girls’ sports only after they’ve begun medical treatment.
The Women’s Sports Foundation recommends states consider the Washington Interscholastic Athletic Association policy, which requires that a male transitioning to female “must have one calendar year of medically documented testosterone suppression therapy to be eligible to participate on a female team.”
Jeff Graham, executive director of the LGBTQ rights organization Georgia Equality, acknowledges the complexity but says the larger picture is obscured when we focus on elite athletes.
“At the end of the day, we have to ask what is the purpose of sports in schools. Certainly, some of it is to develop competitive and professional athletes,” he said in an interview. “But the overwhelming number of students who participate in athletic programs are doing it for the lessons it teaches them about sportsmanship, camaraderie, working with a team, pushing themselves to individual excellence and getting basic health and fitness.”
Graham says Singleton’s bill jeopardizes the benefits of school sports and shuts the door to a group of students already marginalized and vulnerable to harassment and abuse. Singleton’s push for a statewide mandate “takes away the ability of individual schools and school systems to make decisions in the best interest of their students,” said Graham.
While Graham describes HB 747 as “the classic example of a solution in search of a problem,” Singleton disagrees. “It is much more accurate to say it is a solution that will prevent a problem.”