The law in question only prohibits biological males from participating in female sports. It does not prohibit females from joining boys teams. Compare and contrast sections “B” and “C”:
B. Athletic teams or sports designated for “females”, “women” or “girls” may not be open to students of the male sex.
C. This section does not restrict the eligibility of any student to participate in any interscholastic or intramural athletic team or sport designated as being for “males”, “men” or “boys” or designated as “coed” or “mixed”.
I also thought this was pretty interesting:
E. Any student who is deprived of an athletic opportunity or suffers any direct or indirect harm as a result of a school knowingly violating this section has a private cause of action for injunctive relief, damages and any other relief available under law against the school.
The law in question only prohibits biological males from participating in female sports. It does not prohibit females from joining boys teams.
There’s a simple reason for that - the second sentence is required under current interpretations of Title IX, while the first is not. The argument for that is about girl’s sports being a sort of protected space for girls, so it’s OK to bar non-girls (however your jurisdiction chooses to define that) from girls sports, but “boys” sports are actually for everyone who can compete.
The problem is the Trump administration is pushing for this. They’re saying schools can only allow students to play on teams based on their assigned gender at birth. The federal government is using coercion to force states to comply
There is no specific law to follow, since it’s just based on the whims of the federal government. The punishment is withholding funding. There is to judge, jury, or courts of any kind involved. Simply the federal government refusing to release funding if they dislike what states are doing. The AZ law is comparatively toothless
The effect of this is the same as it always is with these types of capricious authoritarian governments: A chilling effect. Actors are overly cautious to avoid drawing the wrath of the powerful central government – Trump in this case
AFAIK, when a law says something like “This section does not [do something]” It’s usually because some other law explicitly prohibits [something]. Without such language, the two laws could be seen as conflicting.
I think excluding girls from boys teams violates Title IX.
Title IX requires gender equity in access and spending. It doesn’t strictly require women to access men’s sports, but it does require the school fully fund/admit women to equivalent in the abstract.
So, for instance, if you spend $100k/year on the boys-only football program, you need $100k dedicated to a girl accessible sport (typically volleyball or softball or soccer).
The principal really needs to read the law. This school is so fucked.
https://codes.findlaw.com/az/title-15-education/az-rev-st-sect-15-120-02/
The law in question only prohibits biological males from participating in female sports. It does not prohibit females from joining boys teams. Compare and contrast sections “B” and “C”:
I also thought this was pretty interesting:
There’s a simple reason for that - the second sentence is required under current interpretations of Title IX, while the first is not. The argument for that is about girl’s sports being a sort of protected space for girls, so it’s OK to bar non-girls (however your jurisdiction chooses to define that) from girls sports, but “boys” sports are actually for everyone who can compete.
The problem is the Trump administration is pushing for this. They’re saying schools can only allow students to play on teams based on their assigned gender at birth. The federal government is using coercion to force states to comply
There is no specific law to follow, since it’s just based on the whims of the federal government. The punishment is withholding funding. There is to judge, jury, or courts of any kind involved. Simply the federal government refusing to release funding if they dislike what states are doing. The AZ law is comparatively toothless
The effect of this is the same as it always is with these types of capricious authoritarian governments: A chilling effect. Actors are overly cautious to avoid drawing the wrath of the powerful central government – Trump in this case
This is literally one of these first things they teach in a (at least NY public high schools) coaching course.
AFAIK, when a law says something like “This section does not [do something]” It’s usually because some other law explicitly prohibits [something]. Without such language, the two laws could be seen as conflicting.
I think excluding girls from boys teams violates Title IX.
Title IX requires gender equity in access and spending. It doesn’t strictly require women to access men’s sports, but it does require the school fully fund/admit women to equivalent in the abstract.
So, for instance, if you spend $100k/year on the boys-only football program, you need $100k dedicated to a girl accessible sport (typically volleyball or softball or soccer).