With every word, these leaders shed another shred of dignity. The latest to shrink was Washington state Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Reykdal.
Appearing on the Seattle-based radio show “Jake and Spike,” the head of Washington’s public school system made some remarks about the boys-in-girls-sports debate that seemed outlandish by even a politician’s standards.
The issue at hand was Initiative 638, a Nov. 3 ballot measure in Washington that, if passed, would keep biological males out of K-12 sports. Host Jake Skorheim brought up the situation in southern Washington, where members of the Camas High girls cross country team walked off the start line Tuesday in protest of having to run in the same event as a boy.
A CROSS COUNTRY RUNNER SWITCHED TO THE GIRLS TEAM MIDSEASON, PARENTS VOICE THEIR DISAPPROVAL AT MEET
Answered Reykdal: “Let’s face it, this is happening across the country, where we’ve empowered young people to make important decisions. And 99% of the time, they’re good friends and colleagues, and they respect their transgender colleagues. But some don’t agree with it, and that’s their right to express that.”
This doesn’t sound too objectionable on its face, but there did seem to be a subtle dig at the protesters. Reykdal said that 99% of young athletes are “good friends and colleagues” and that they “respect their transgender colleagues.” It’s almost as though he’s implying the 1% are disrespectful. No. Surely there are some girls out there who are OK with competing against biological boys. The fact that protesters have received backlash from various teammates proves as much. But just because other athletes aren’t going public with their disapproval doesn’t mean they like it. They just don’t want the smoke that comes with being outspoken.
Second — choosing not to compete against a trans athlete does not make one disrespectful toward the trans community. It is simply acknowledging an unmistakable biological advantage and highlighting the unfairness.
Reykdal continued: “The much larger issue here is: Can we accommodate 10, 12, 15 kids a year and make them feel included? Or do we have to go through an initiative process where every single girl has to prove, through one of three methods, that she’s a girl in order to participate?”
The term “inclusivity” has been co-opted to vilify anyone who opposes males in female sports. The truth is that sports at most levels are designed to be exclusive. Only a certain number of athletes make the team, or get to start, or reach the final heat, or get a scholarship. And those “10, 12 or 15 kids” often have great success. Last year, high school trans athletes won girls’ state track-and-field championships in Washington, Oregon and California. And at Camas, a biological male went from 76th in a boys JV race to first in a varsity girls meet.
Hence Skorheim’s next question.
“I hear what you’re saying, but specifically, I want to ask about this case in Camas. They’re racing against somebody who, earlier in the year, was 76th running for the boys cross-country team, who placed second here. Now, those girls had to forfeit because they had no chance of winning.”
Answered Reykdal: “Well, I raised two kids, and one of them was a daughter in sports. And my take is, you have a choice to make. You’re going to compete and do the best you can and embrace your colleagues, or you’re going to walk off and make a statement. And that’s okay, too.”
SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY OUTKICK NEWSLETTER
I don’t want to put words in Reykdal’s mouth, but it almost sounds like he’s telling these girls to simply compete, do their best and accept the circumstances — regardless of whether those circumstances are fair. But would he say something similar about athletes competing against people on steroids? That they should just embrace their “colleagues.” Probably not. Again, this isn’t about discrimination or hate — it’s about fairness.
But Reykdal’s answer to the following question is much more egregious.
“If your daughter was running against a boy—an athlete who raced as a boy and was 76th, and then had to race against that same athlete on your team—does that seem like a fair situation to you?” asked Skorheim.
Answered Reykdal: “I don’t see it that way, Jake. I just don’t. These are young, developing people whose brains aren’t going to fully develop until they’re 25.”
Excuse me?
Sorry, kids, we don’t owe you fairness because your brains aren’t fully developed. And while we’re at it, we can shortchange college athletes because, unless they’re at BYU, they’re all under 25 as well.
I’ve seen people try to dismiss this issue with an arsenal of arguments — that I-638 proponents are bigoted, that trans athletes are rare or that proving one’s gender will require “invasive genital inspections” (untrue). But their brains aren’t fully developed is a new one.
Again, you won’t see politicians bluntly say that it’s OK to have boys compete against girls. That’s a losing argument. So instead, you get mental gymnastics worthy of the all-around gold.
Sorry, but with answers like these — you have to wonder whose brains are truly undeveloped.
