For the past thirteen years, I have been the owner and publisher of The Junior Hockey News, where we have diligently covered women’s amateur hockey. We’ve advocated for change in a junior hockey culture that too often places young women in vulnerable situations, leading to instances of criminal sexual conduct.
Until now, TJHN, as well as I personally, have refrained from making political statements publicly. I value maintaining neutrality in the public political sphere. However, after extensive contemplation, I find it necessary to address the recent amendments to Title IX legislated under President Joe Biden, set to be implemented on August 1, 2024.
Title IX is foundational in granting young women equal opportunities in competitive sports and safeguarding them from discrimination, including protection against sexual harassment and assault at higher education institutions.
The modifications enacted by the Biden Administration, from my perspective, compromise these essential protections and cater to a demographic that doesn’t reflect the views of the majority of Americans.
The battle for gender equality and legal protection in all aspects of life within the United States remains a persistent one. To articulate my stance clearly: I champion not only women’s rights but also the fundamental right to equal protection under the law for everyone.
The recent changes to Title IX exceed the mandate of providing equal protection.
My viewpoint aligns with those I frequently discuss this issue with and is straightforwardly rooted in established science. Human genetic makeup is defined by DNA carried within chromosomes found within our cells. Science has consistently identified XX chromosomes in females and XY chromosomes in males – a recognized fact within genetic research.
Given these widespread scientific acknowledgments, it baffles me why some individuals let personal feelings try to override established scientific facts. Why advocate for genetic males to compete against genetic females? The heart of the ongoing debate focuses on this very issue.
It is worth noting that while we rarely see female athletes seeking entry into men’s basketball or ice hockey leagues, cases exist where genetic male athletes seek competition in women’s sports – a central point of contention with President Biden’s legislative changes.
However, it is important to acknowledge that there have been cases where women have entered male-dominated sports like NCAA football as kickers when their skill warranted it—proving that successful competition can be based on talent rather than genetic makeup.
Does the prospect of genetically female athletes pursuing NCAA scholarships to compete on male hockey or basketball teams seem plausible? While some women may have the capability to compete at that level, their inclination to do so might be limited.
We must consider whether it is appropriate for 21-year-old genetically female athletes to engage in full contact hockey against their male counterparts and whether such competition would be fair.
With the recent amendments, a scenario may arise where a genetic male, unable to secure a position on an NCAA male hockey team, opts to identify as female and subsequently cites discrimination under the new rules if rejected. This scenario raises concerns about fairness, especially if genetically female athletes lose opportunities for roster spots and scholarships as a result.
Those who believe these incidents will not occur are perhaps not fully aware of the complexity of this issue. On the flip side, those who consider these outcomes as just may be overlooking the potential implications.
It is critical to note that sexual orientation or gender identity should not matter in an individual’s life or in sports. The United States prides itself on freedom, and everyone has the right to their personal identity. However, historically sports divisions have been based on genetics rather than emotion, primarily for safety reasons—to prevent injuries in women’s sports.
The introduction of mandatory pronoun usage in educational institutions under Title IX amendments—and penalizing non-compliance—is seen by some as an infringement on First Amendment rights.
Although Title IX revisions do not specifically target athletics, numerous references imply that they encompass all athletes, regardless of whether or not sexual orientation or gender identity is directly discussed.
From a parental and grandparental perspective, protecting our children is paramount. Protection encompasses both physical safety and shielding from ideologies divergent from societal norms. While you may disagree with my viewpoint, I believe safeguarding our children enables them to make informed decisions later in life about their own beliefs.
In conclusion, I argue that these Title IX amendments could erode physical protections for genetically female athletes. In my view, putting such protections at risk for the sake of an agenda is a disservice to all involved.
Why would the Biden administration implement these changes without conducting nationwide votes? Presumably, because they anticipate defeat.
Although expressing my opinion through this writing might not alter the imminent enforcement of these rules, slated for August first, I remain hopeful that a collective voice can influence those in positions of authority to eventually restore and uphold women’s rights as originally envisioned.
Joseph Kolodziej – Publisher
