January 21, 2021, Republican representative Greg Steube (FL) introduced a bill to congress that would give state athletic associations an ultimatum: ban transgender students from playing sex-segregated sports or lose government funding. As a community, we are well aware that the funding given to athletic associations in schools does not cover all of the expenses, but that funding is necessary to cover some of the fees of keeping sports in school. The bill in question, HR 426, does not explicitly state how schools are supposed to identify trans athletes but does state that the biological sex of students is what will be taken into consideration. A large number of Republican representatives are backing Steube’s bill, claiming that “The admittance of biological males in women’s sports creates an unfair playing field”. With this bill, the proposal of athlete genital exams has been discussed in order to determine which students will be eligible to play school sports. The proposal of said bill has caused an uproar in concern, not only from the Democratic party but parents of athletes. Concern that the potential genital exams of athletes will be abused by predators has been the response from the nation. While the bill introduced by Steube has only been in the media since January, states such as Kentucky, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee have similar state legislations in the works to prevent trans athletes from playing sports. This bill and its corresponding legislation in some states have caused uneasiness among the trans and LGBTQ+ community, specifically what this will mean for current and future trans or gender-nonconforming teens. Although this uneasiness is not new, bills similar to Stuebe’s (such as bill HB 500) have emerged since 2016. The conversation surrounding Stuebe’s bill has specifically applied to high school athletics and whether or not trans athletes actually affect the integrity of a game. All in all, the bill and conversation surrounding it boil down to religion and politics intermixing. The likelihood of the bill being passed is slim due to the house majority, yet there is no doubt that similar bills will be introduced in the future.
By: Rachel Marshall