Michelle Quist: Plan to ban transgender girls comes from fear and misinformation

I never thought I would be writing commentary regarding transgender athletes’ participation in high school sports. I also never thought the Utah Legislature might scapegoat a handful of already-fragile teenagers in its need to declare itself the ambassador of morality.

There really is no other reason — there are currently zero transgender athletes playing in Utah high schools — the Legislature decided to even take up this very controversial, emotionally charged issue during this year’s session. Apparently, the pandemic hasn’t presented any real problems to keep them busy.

Earlier this session the House passed House Bill 302, which would prohibit transgender girls from playing in high school girls’ sports activities.

The bill said, “a student of the male sex may not participate, and a public school or LEA (local education agency) may not allow a student of the male sex to participate, in a school athletic activity designated as ‘female’ or ‘girls.’” The genders were defined “by an individual’s genetics and anatomy at birth.”

A later version allowed transgender girls to participate in public school athletics, just not competitions between schools.

Luckily, and thanks to the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, the bill died in the Senate.

Gov. Spencer Cox said he did not support the bill in its current form. His comments were so impactful they have actually gone viral on TikTok.

Obviously emotional, the governor said, “These kids are … they’re just trying to stay alive. There’s a reason none of them are playing sports. And so … I just think there’s a better way. And I hope there will be enough grace in our state to find a better solution. I don’t understand all of this. I don’t. But I’m trying to understand more. I’m trying to listen and learn and, again, trying to help kids figure out who they are and keep them alive.”

I think this is right. There is legitimate concern on both sides. I don’t believe that those who supported this bill were coming from a place of hate for transgender youth or any interest in seeing them suffer. And I don’t think we should impute hate or ill intent on either side of this debate. But I do think supporters are coming from a place of fear, and perhaps misinformation.

And I think the bill will be back eventually.

I understand the concerns of parents who wish to safeguard their daughter from playing against someone who is larger and better equipped physically for competition. But the concerns are mostly misplaced.

First, there are literally no transgender athletes in Utah high schools right now. And the number of athletes in the future will likely be miniscule.

Second, the Utah High School Activities Association already enforces regulations on transgender athletes to take hormone therapy for at least one year before participating in high school sports.

Third, the bill was likely unconstitutional because it treated men and women unequally. The bill prohibited transgender girls from competing in girls’ sports but didn’t prohibit transgender boys from competing in boys’ sports.

To implement the Legislature’s rationale equally, we would have to prohibit transgender girls from playing in girls’ sports and force them to play against boys. Also, we would have to prohibit transgender boys from playing in boys’ sports and force them to play against girls. Thus, the same “problems” of individuals with supposed advantageous physical traits – transgender boys who have been taking testosterone to increase male characteristics – would be playing with girls.

In other words, the Legislature’s bill didn’t make sense if they’re trying to “protect girls” from pretend problems.

And as an aside, if the Legislature was really trying to protect girls it wouldn’t have the Equal Rights Amendment stalled in committee indefinitely. Sure they care about girls. Sure they do.

Finally, our children compete against others with varying abilities and varying competitive advantages all the time. And we can’t legislate an equal playing field. And our kids will be alright.

The point is, even if there is a slight or even moderate advantage in favor of transgender girls, this is an insufficient reason to discriminate against them. What about girls who are over 6 feet? Should we make a rule about them? What about girls who are larger than average? Or those who are faster than normal? Should we limit them?

I asked my daughter what she thought about possibly playing against a transgender athlete who was bigger than her. She said she already plays against girls who are bigger than her. She’s 5 foot 1, after all.

But really, she responded that lots of people have different advantages for different reasons, and that the frequency of playing against an athlete who might be transgender and might have certain advantages was so minuscule that she wasn’t concerned. And it was more important to her that those who want to play get to play.

It seems that our kids get it better than we do. Hopefully any future bill will keep all of our kids in mind.

Michelle Quist is a Salt Lake City attorney and a columnist for The Salt Lake Tribune.