Funding cuts to HIV healthcare threatening thousands of queer Californians and fascist attacks against trans athletes suggest Newsom's deference to the billionaire oligarchy is only just beginning.
I have to push back on one remark in your otherwise informative piece entitled "Newsom and CIF partially cave to Trump."
First, you write that Erin Reed and LGBTQ Nation "falsely" referred to the actions taken as a “limited sports ban” even as you yourself call it a "partial capitulation," which strikes me as a distinction without a difference.
More to the point, you, I won't say falsely but surely incorrectly, say AB Hernandez "is not banned from competing against girls from the girl’s track and field team at her school."
But, as you acknowledge, the plans "create a separate scoring" for cis and trans girls - which means that while Hernandez may be competing *with* other girls, i.e., in the same event on the same field, she is not competing *against* them in any meaningful sense of the word. And that is without even considering the question of interscholastic meets.
Again, the piece was quite informative, but calling a policy that actively restricts the ability of a trans girl to actually compete in sport a “limited ban” is entirely appropriate.
She is still competing with cis girls. She will receive a placement based on how she compares with cis girls. There is absolutely no kind of ban because there legally can't be one, and she is competing with cis girls even though there are pity prizes for cis girls who would have placed if she wasn't there.
As a news journalist, I have a responsibility to correct misinformation, no matter who it comes from. There is no ban against her competing because she is competing with cis girls even if cis girls get a pity prize.
Assuming the usual standard of top three results are the winners, what if she has, for the easiest example, the best result? Is she 1st, followed by 2nd, 3rd, and “pity prize” 4th? If so, what meaning does the phrase “separate scoring” have since that would say there isn’t a separate one?
A number of reports referred to the option of a cis girl winner and a trans girl winner. Are they also all “false?” If not, how is that not separate scoring and how is she actually competing against other girls? And how is it not a limited ban?
Finally, what perhaps should have been the first question, is your actual argument that the proposed “partial capitulation” actually isn’t one because it will fall before a challenge to its legality? If so, that should have been the lede.
There is one girl's competition and potentially 2 scores. One score is all girls, the other is cis girls only (if it's different).
So if AB gets third, she gets third. And whoever was fourth, gets third and fourth.
It's dumb and confusing and many outlets as you noted also misrepresented this by implying or saying that AB is competing alone in a trans-only competition, but that was never actually the case.
I've confirmed this reality personally through reading through many news reports, the CIF program pamphlet, and even folks on the ground who know what's going on. There is no reasonable way you could ever represent what happened as any kind of sports ban, not even for one person.
It is dumb and wrong and harmful to trans kids and puts California on a path towards more restrictions or weird rules like this, yes, but there is no sports ban and cannot unless the state law mandating trans participation in sports is somehow overturned or repealed.
That's my last word on this matter, there is more than enough information in this article and my comments here to explain this situation at this point.
I have to push back on one remark in your otherwise informative piece entitled "Newsom and CIF partially cave to Trump."
First, you write that Erin Reed and LGBTQ Nation "falsely" referred to the actions taken as a “limited sports ban” even as you yourself call it a "partial capitulation," which strikes me as a distinction without a difference.
More to the point, you, I won't say falsely but surely incorrectly, say AB Hernandez "is not banned from competing against girls from the girl’s track and field team at her school."
But, as you acknowledge, the plans "create a separate scoring" for cis and trans girls - which means that while Hernandez may be competing *with* other girls, i.e., in the same event on the same field, she is not competing *against* them in any meaningful sense of the word. And that is without even considering the question of interscholastic meets.
Again, the piece was quite informative, but calling a policy that actively restricts the ability of a trans girl to actually compete in sport a “limited ban” is entirely appropriate.
She is still competing with cis girls. She will receive a placement based on how she compares with cis girls. There is absolutely no kind of ban because there legally can't be one, and she is competing with cis girls even though there are pity prizes for cis girls who would have placed if she wasn't there.
As a news journalist, I have a responsibility to correct misinformation, no matter who it comes from. There is no ban against her competing because she is competing with cis girls even if cis girls get a pity prize.
Just three Qs for the moment:
Assuming the usual standard of top three results are the winners, what if she has, for the easiest example, the best result? Is she 1st, followed by 2nd, 3rd, and “pity prize” 4th? If so, what meaning does the phrase “separate scoring” have since that would say there isn’t a separate one?
A number of reports referred to the option of a cis girl winner and a trans girl winner. Are they also all “false?” If not, how is that not separate scoring and how is she actually competing against other girls? And how is it not a limited ban?
Finally, what perhaps should have been the first question, is your actual argument that the proposed “partial capitulation” actually isn’t one because it will fall before a challenge to its legality? If so, that should have been the lede.
There is one girl's competition and potentially 2 scores. One score is all girls, the other is cis girls only (if it's different).
So if AB gets third, she gets third. And whoever was fourth, gets third and fourth.
It's dumb and confusing and many outlets as you noted also misrepresented this by implying or saying that AB is competing alone in a trans-only competition, but that was never actually the case.
I've confirmed this reality personally through reading through many news reports, the CIF program pamphlet, and even folks on the ground who know what's going on. There is no reasonable way you could ever represent what happened as any kind of sports ban, not even for one person.
It is dumb and wrong and harmful to trans kids and puts California on a path towards more restrictions or weird rules like this, yes, but there is no sports ban and cannot unless the state law mandating trans participation in sports is somehow overturned or repealed.
That's my last word on this matter, there is more than enough information in this article and my comments here to explain this situation at this point.