Equality Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it abundantly clear exactly what this motion to recommit does, so I am going to read it. It is very short.

``Nothing in this act or any amendment made by this act may be construed to diminish any protections under title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.''

The threat that this bill poses for women's sports at every level is profound. As described by the Nation's leading expert on sports, sex, and biology, Professor Doriane Lambelet Coleman, she states: ``There is a significant performance difference between males and females. . . . Testosterone is the primary driver of that difference. There is a wide gap, no overlap, between the male and female testosterone ranges. . . . There is no scientific doubt that testosterone is the reason that men as a group perform better than women in sports. Indeed, this is why men and women dope with androgens. . . .''

Requiring that biological females face competition from biological males will mean the end of women's sports in any meaningful sense.

As tennis great Martina Navratilova has written in The Washington Post: ``In its current form, the Equality Act would do significant damage to title IX and to the Amateur Sports Act, which governs sports outside of educational settings. The new legislation would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act by redefining `sex' to include `gender identity.' Without an exception, the definition would apply to all amendments to the 1964 act, including title IX. Most schools, colleges, the NCAA, and the Olympic Committee would be affected because they receive Federal funds and operate in interstate commerce.

``The legislation would make it unlawful to differentiate among girls and women in sports on the basis of sex for any purpose. For example, a sports team couldn't treat a transgender woman differently from a woman who is not transgender on the grounds that the former is male-bodied. Yet the reality is that putting male- and female-bodied athletes together is co-ed or open sport. And in open sport, females lose.

``Some Equality Act advocates argue that this is hyperbole and outdated stereotype. They say, as the ACLU has, that there is `ample evidence that girls can compete and win against boys.' They are wrong. The evidence is unequivocal that starting in puberty, in every sport except sailing, shooting, and riding, there will always be significant numbers of boys and men who would beat the best girls and women in head-to-head competition. Claims to the contrary are simply a denial of science.''

Those are not my words. Those are the words of female tennis great Martina Navratilova.

In footnote 44 of the committee report on this bill, the Democrat majority states: ``The committee acknowledges that the addition of sex as a protected characteristic under title VI of the bill raises some questions about how the revised title VI should be read in relation to title IX of the Education Amendments Act. It is the committee's intention not to alter in any way title IX or the scope or availability of its exemptions as they currently stand. Rather, title IX and the revised title VI should be read as being complimentary provisions that provide overlapping protection against sex discrimination.''

But, of course, we all know that allowing biological males to compete against biological females is not an ``overlapping protection.'' It is, instead, a violation of women's rights to engage in competitive sports on an even playing field and to enjoy the protection of their own spaces reserved for biological females.

So this motion to recommit is essential to protecting the rights of women and girls in sports that H.R. 5 currently denies.

Even the Obama administration wrote a letter to schools regarding title IX enforcements making clear that they should continue to be able to enforce policies that are ``tailored requirements based on sound, current, and research-based medical knowledge about the impact of the individual's participation on the competitive fairness or physical safety of the sport.''

Adoption of this motion to recommit will not kill the bill. It will not delay the bill's consideration. If this motion to recommit is adopted, the bill proceeds directly to final passage.

If H.R. 5 becomes law, our daughters will be asking us: ``What did you do when moves were made to eliminate women's sports?'' It is worth considering that question now before it is too late.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in protecting title IX and protecting women's sports and supporting this motion to recommit.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source