Click ‘Play’ on the video player above to listen to Dr. Mahri Irvine’s oral testimony.

Last week, WoLF submitted oral and written testimony in support of a “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act” bill in Delaware: DE SB 227.

Dr. Mahri Irvine, WoLF’s Executive Director, attended the committee hearing and submitted oral testimony. Ms. Lauren Adams, WoLF’s Legal Director, submitted written testimony.

Delaware’s Fairness in WOmen’s Sports Act

Senator Bryant Richardson, SB 227’s sponsor, provided opening remarks that were informative and fact-based. He explained that SB 227 was designed “to protect the gains in women’s sports that were boosted almost 50 years ago under Title IX” and he noted that “the inclusion of male-bodied athletes in women’s sports decreases the chances of female athletes’ success.” He also provided facts and information related to male athletes who have won women’s competitions, and information about the different physiological capabilities of males and females.

EXPERT WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF SB 227

Senator Richardson had two expert witnesses testify in support of the bill. Dr. Michelle Parsons educated the committee members about her work with male and female patients who have hormonal imbalances. She explained that she sometimes worked with male and female patients who had identical estrogen or testosterone levels due to various health problems. Yet, Dr. Parsons explained, those patients were still clearly male and female human beings with typical male and female physiques. She stated, “They were clearly functionally and physically distinctly different,” and that it is a mistake to exclusively focus on men’s lowered testosterone levels to support claims that those men are no longer physically different than women. Dr. Parsons explained that even when males use testosterone blockers, “they still far surpass genetic women in muscle mass, oxygen, and other capacity.” She argued that “testosterone [should not be] the determinant for whether a male should play women’s sports” and explained that women and girls can be put at risk of physical harm when they are forced to compete against males, due to the physical differences in size and strength. Dr. Parsons also explained to the committee members that SB 227 would protect boys as well. This is because boys who want to compete on girls’ sports teams might be more likely to engage in genital mutilation surgeries in order to “prove” that they are girls. While this argument is obviously not a primary focus for WoLF, Dr. Irvine appreciated the fact that Dr. Parsons sought to help the committee members understand how both girls and boys are harmed by trans ideology that encourages and promotes unnecessary medical procedures, including genital mutilations.

Senator Richardson’s second witness was Thomas Neuberger, an expert in constitutional law with over 47 years of experience representing women seeking to protect their rights. Mr. Neuberger stated that allowing males to compete in women’s sports “isn’t fair and undermines Title IX.” He argued that there is a limited number of opportunities in [sports] “and if a transgender male is able to compete in girls’ high school sports, we will see the elimination of girls’ state championship titles. It won’t happen immediately, but gradually.” Mr. Neuberger concluded by stating that this matter should be debated before the general assembly.

EMOTIONAL TACTICS IN THE DELAWARE STATE HOUSE

The committee hearing involved quite a bit of heated discussion between the committee members, with emotionally-charged comments made by two Democratic senators. The chairperson of the committee hearing was Senator Sarah McBride, a trans-identified male. Senator McBride spent a large portion of the hearing expressing his views about how harmful SB 227 would be to “transgender children.” After Senator McBride took up a vast amount of time expressing his views, Senator Marie Pinkney discussed harms that would allegedly be caused by this bill. She read a list of names of black trans-identified men who have been killed throughout the United States. Senator’s Pinkney’s connection between adult men being killed throughout the country and a Delaware sports bill that protects women’s and girls’ sports was unclear. There seemed to be an insinuation that preventing males from playing on women’s and girls’ sports teams in Delaware would somehow lead to the murder of trans-identified men in other parts of the country.

Several of the Democratic senators became highly emotional as they discussed the alleged harms that would be caused by single-sex sports teams. Almost all of the people providing public testimony in opposition to SB 227 stated or insinuated that single-sex sports teams would lead to the death of children by suicide. Opponents also argued that single-sex sports teams were a form of government-sponsored bullying or oppression. These fear-based emotional arguments were the same sentiments expressed in the SC hearings that WoLF attended a few weeks ago. The threat of children’s suicide seems to be the primary argument that trans activists use whenever they oppose bills that are designed to protect women’s rights.

Women’s & Girls’ Sports: The CanarY in the Coalmine

Another similar argument was the notion that if a problem does not currently exist, then a bill should not be proposed. At both the DE and SC hearings, some legislators and people providing public testimony claimed that if trans-identified males have not yet tried to play in women’s competitions, then no problem exists and therefore, it is inappropriate to pass a bill that will prevent trans-identified males from competing in women’s sports in the future. According to the logic of these arguments, state governments should not anticipate or predict problems. Instead, they should wait until trans-identified males start competing against women and girls, and only then should the government review the situation for possible problems. Of course, this approach means that state governments would wait for women and girls to be harmed before stepping in to protect them.

Dr. Irvine was unable to attend the entire committee hearing, but at the time of her departure, a fairly equal amount of people provided support in support and in opposition to SB 227. Private citizens, advocacy groups, and a former tennis coach testified in support of SB 227. However, several so-called women’s advocacy organizations opposed SB 227; apparently, these groups prioritize the desires of males at the expense of females.