• Okokimup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    16 hours ago

    The district pointed to a state law enacted in 2022, which mandates that school sports teams must be designated “based on the biological sex of the students who participate” in the sport. A federal judge blocked enforcement of that law in 2023, but only against two trans student-athletes who filed suit against it. (An appeals court upheld that injunction last year, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case this summer.)

    Any chance this is some malicious compliance?

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      The law in question doesn’t actually mandate that school sports teams must be designated “based on the biological sex of the students who participate” in the sport. If you read the law, it only prohibits biological males from participating in female sports. It does not prohibit biological females from participating in male sports. Quite the contrary, it specifically acknowledges that all students, regardless of sex or gender, are allowed to participate in “boys” sports.

      https://codes.findlaw.com/az/title-15-education/az-rev-st-sect-15-120-02/

    • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      15 hours ago

      It’s really a no win situation though if the boy complies. Newsmax will show footage of a game he plays in as evidence that boys are playing in girls sports, and the idiots who watch will believe it and support even worse politicians and laws.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Could be! I was just commenting that the kid could engage in malicious compliance. Let’s see what happens when he exits the girls locker room with wet hair and a towel around his neck.