Reference Guide for Transgender Policy

CIAC Transgender Policy

Page 54-Article IX - Rules of Eligibility and Control for Boys and Girls High School Athletics in Connecticut: Section B. Transgender Participation

The CIAC is committed to providing transgender student-athletes with equal opportunities to participate in CIAC athletic programs consistent with their gender identity. Hence, this policy addresses eligibility determinations for students who have a gender identity that is different from the gender listed on their official birth certificates.

The CIAC has concluded that it would be fundamentally unjust and contrary to applicable state and federal law to preclude a student from participation on a gender specific sports team that is consistent with the public gender identity of that student for all other purposes. Therefore, for purposes of sports participation, the CIAC shall defer to the determination of the student and his or her local school regarding gender identification. In this regard, the school district shall determine a student's eligibility to participate in a CIAC gender specific sports team based on thegender identification of that student in current school records and daily life activities in the school and community at the time that sports eligibility is determined for a particular season. Accordingly, when a school district submits a roster to the CIAC, it is verifying that it has determined that the students listed on a gender specific sports team are entitled to participate on that team due to their gender identity and that the school district has determined that theexpression of the student's gender identity is bona fide and not for the purpose of gaining anunfair advantage in competitive athletics.

Students who wish to participate on a CIAC gender specific sports team that is different from thegender identity listed on the student's current school records are advised to address the genderidentification issue with the local school district well in advance of the deadline for athletic eligibility determinations for a current sports season. Students should not be permitted to participate in practices or to try out for gender specific sports teams that are different from their publicly identified gender identity at that time or to try out simultaneously for CIAC sports teams of both genders.

Nothing in this policy shall be read to entitle a student to selection to any particular team or to permit a student to transfer from one gender specific team to a team of a different gender during a sports season. In addition, the CIAC shall expect that, as a general matter, after the issue of gender identity has been addressed by the student and the school district, the determination shallremain consistent for the remainder of the student's high school sports eligibility. TheCIAC has concluded that this criterion is sufficient to preclude the likelihood that a student will claim a particular gender identity for the purpose of gaining a perceived advantage in athletic competition.

Reference Guide for Transgender Policy Shipman and Goodwin Recommendation

Shipman and Goodwin reviewed CIAC's policy accounting forapplicable legal considerations and related guidance. They concludedthat "gender fluid" is itself a form of gender identity orexpression, and therefore that the team selection policy for these students should reflect the fluid nature of the gender fluid identity or expression to the maximum extent possible. We recognize that it would be impractical and disruptive (and perhaps susceptible to gamesmanship) to permit gender fluid students to switch back and forth from one gender-specific team to the other at their discretion (which theoretically could result in daily alternation between teams). Accordingly, wehave proposed two possible "open enrollment" periods. The key is that the "open enrollment"period should be the shortest increment of time -- a CIAC season or a school year -- that is practical, so that the rule will be consistent with the protected status of gender fluid students.

Conn. Gen. Stat. 46a-64(a)

(a) It shall be a discriminatory practicein violation of this section: (1) To deny any personwithin the jurisdiction of this state full and equal accommodations in any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, gender identity or expression, marital status, age, lawful source of income, intellectual disability, mental disability or physical disability, including, but not limited to, blindness or deafness of the applicant, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law and applicable aliketo all persons; (2) to discriminate, segregate or separate on account of race, creed, color, nationalorigin, ancestry, sex, gender identity or expression, marital status, age, lawful source of income, intellectual disability, mental disability, learning disability or physical disability, including, but not limited to, blindness or deafness.

Conn. Gen. Stat. 46a-51(21) Defining Gender Identity

(21)"Gender identity or expression" means a person's gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth, which gender- related identity can be shown by providing evidence including, but not limited to, medical history, care or treatment of the gender-related identity, consistent and uniform assertion of the gender-related identity or any other evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held, part of a person's core identity or not being asserted for an improper purpose.

Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities Consultation (3/1/2019)

On March 1, 2019, Executive Director, Glenn Lungarini, consulted with the legal division ofConnecticut's Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO). The attorney for CHRO stated that they were aware of the controversy surrounding transgender athlete participation in Connecticut and have been monitoring the topic closely. The CHRO attorney stated that their office was very pleased with the policy, actions, and position that CIAC hastaken on transgender athlete participation. He affirmed Shipman and Goodwin's interpretationof Conn. Gen. Stat. 46a-64(a), Conn. Gen. Stat. 46a-51(21), and gender fluidity. Furthermore, he confirmed that Title IX supports transgender athletes being provided the

Reference Guide for Transgender Policy

opportunity to participate with the gender of which they identify. Finally, the CHRO attorney stated that if CIAC changed its policy to be more restrictive of transgender participation we may be susceptible to discriminatory action.

Office of Civil Rights (Boston Office) US Department of Education Consultation (3/4/2019)

On March 4, 2019, Executive Director, Glenn Lungarini, consulted with a compliance officer with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR, Boston office). In that consultation, we discussed Title IX, Connecticut discriminatory statutes, and Connecticut gender identity statutes. The OCR compliance officer confirmed that Title IX supports transgender athletic opportunities with the gender of which a person identifies. She further stated that such support does not requi re hormone therapy nor gender reassignment surgery. Based on Connecticut general statutes, she affirmed previous interpretations of gender identity we must consider for compliance. The OCR compliance officer stated that our current CIAC appears to be in compliance with Title IX and Connecticut law. She could not speculate whether a change to a more restrictive policy would violate Title IX as such changes were hypothetical and not current written policy. She did affirmthat CIAC's current policy appears to be in full compliance for both cisgender and transgenderathletes. Finally, she stated the U.S. Department of Education should be releasing updated Title IX language in the future which further addresses transgender participation.

Review of State Association Policies for Transgender Athletic Participation

A review of state association polices revealed a close connection to state law with reference to federal law, for those who have policies. Forty-three states currently have transgender policies defined within their state athletic association by-laws. Eighteen of those states have policies which do not require medical hormones or surgical requirements. Eighteen states require an individual review and make determinations on a case-by-case basis. Seven states require participants adhere to the gender identified on their birth certificate or require surgery and a hormone wait period. For thirty-six states that do not require hormone therapy of surgical modification, even those considering classification on a case-by-case basis, the following legal references are adhered to:

Fourteenth amendment Equal Protection Clause which guarantees equal protection under the law and prohibits discrimination based on arbitrary criteria, including prohibition against inequities rooted in sexual orientation or gender identity.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 which is a broad-based anti-gender- discrimination law increasingly being used to provide legal recourse for LGBTQ students.

State Laws Prohibiting Discrimination in Schools Based on Sexual Orientation or Gender identity

As of December 2018, 14 jurisdictions had enacted such legislation including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

Opinion: Five stumbles on the path to transgender inclusion and fairness for all girls in sports

March 5, 2021

Dawn Ennis

Special to USA TODAY Sports

Editor's note: Dawn Ennis, managing editor of Outsports, has written a guest column challenging the goals of the Women's Sports Policy Working Group, which hasasked Congressto limit the participation of transgender girls and womenwho "have experienced all or part of male puberty" from participating in competitive girls' and women's sports.

I believe the Women's Sports Policy Working Group wants the support of those of us fighting for inclusion of trans girls and women in sports.

That's why I have privately reached out to them. They have promised to respond to questions I have about their organization and its goals.I do applaud their effort to bring us together: those of us who are advocating for equal rights, from courthouses to state houses, and those like former President Trump, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Sens. Rand Paul and Mitt Romney, who vociferously and wrongly claim that allowing trans girls and women to compete with other girls and women will destroy women's sports.

It's an important issue that has been addressed by the Biden administration, which last month withdrew federalsupport of a landmark lawsuit in Connecticut that sought to ban transgender athletes from competing against girls in high school sports. Biden'sexecutive orderdirecting federal agencies to avoid discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation comes at a time when more than 20 states such asTennessee have moved to pass legislationthat will ban transgender athletes from competing in middle school and high school sports under their gender identity.

To me, the Women's Sports Policy Working Group is like a runner tripping at the starting block.While I am encouraged by their promise to end vitriol and hopefully create a path toward inclusion, they have a long way to go to be a winner.

As I see it, they've stumbled fivetimes:

First stumble: Frequently wrong answers to FAQs

TheWorking Group website'sanswers to "Frequently Asked Questions" are rife with anti-inclusion propaganda. The response to almost every mention of a claim by a trans advocacy group is, "No. They are wrong."

Sports news, no matter the season. Stop by for the scores, stay for the stories.

No matter what the context is, comparing women athletes to men, especially grown women to boys still in high school, is misogyny. Comparing trans women to men, or trans girls to boys, is transphobia.

But the biggest problem is the Working Group's use of the phrase "biological sex," which is frequently mentioned throughout its documentation. Those two words feature prominently in the ongoing debate over gender identity and sports.

Chase Strangio, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, who also happens to be trans, tweeted that the term "biological sex" was specifically created as a tool of oppression against the trans community.

"Trans girls/women are biologically male," the group's website says. No. That's wrong: they're transgender. They were presumed male at birth. Calling their bodies "biologically male" is transphobic. Instead, just say, "a trans girl's body."

Second stumble: Science fiction

Among the research cited is a 2020 study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, led by pediatrician Thomas Roberts, M.D.He told NBC Newshe wants groups to stop misrepresenting his work.

"I'm definitely coming out and saying, 'Hey, this doesn't apply to recreational athletes, doesn't apply to youth athletics,'" he said. "At the recreational level, probably one year is sufficient for most people to be able to compete."

A transgender woman who transitions before or at puberty, "doesn't really have any advantage," said Roberts, when it comes to athletic performance. "So that young lady should be allowed to compete with all the other people who are born women."

None of the other research cited compares an actual elite trans woman athlete with an elite cis woman athlete. The Working Group should rely only on relevant scientific data to determine a path forward.

Third stumble: One simple fact about trans athletes

All the citations about trans female athletes winning competitions fails to mention thatjust like every athlete, they don't always win. They lose, but we rarely see those headlines in the mainstream media.

Chelsea Mitchell, one of the plaintiffs in a federal lawsuitin Connecticut,beat one of the trans girlscalled "unbeatable" by Mitchell's attorney. Not just once; Mitchell outran Terry Miller at least twice within ninedays of filing that suit.

Fourth stumble: Founders overlooked one thing

Don't look for anyone transgender on the list of founders. There are none. As trans athleteChris Mosier tweeted, "If a working group on transgender athletes doesn't actually include a transgender person, isn't that just a bunch of cis people trying to make themselves look & sound inclusive?"

The founders are incredible athletes, coaches and sports experts, but none is an expert in medicine or science.It's a point the Working Group disputes, saying it has founders with "extensive experience in the related science" without going into detail. One of the co-founders, Olympic gold medalist and civil rights attorneyNancy Hogshead-Makar, told me, "We have received lots of support from people that - for whatever reason - cannot put their name to the effort."She identifiedMike Joyner, M.D. as a physician who is their expert and advisor, but she said he is not part of their Working Group.

Olympic gold medalist swimmer Donna de Varona is aformer president of the Women's Sports Foundation. She's alsoone of more than 300 women athletes who signed a letterto the NCAA last summer, expressing opposition to transgender inclusion.

Several prominent trans women athletes are among supporters of the initiative, including Juniper Eastwood, the first out trans Division I cross country runner. They join Joanna Harper, a former elite marathoner and a researcher, and Rene Richards, M.D., the former professional tennis player and one of the first pro athletes to identify as transgender. Harper favors some form of inclusion;Richards joins her longtime friend, tennis icon Martina Navratilova, in firm opposition. Navratilova has been an outspoken critic of inclusion for years.

And then there's Inga Thompson, the 10-time national champion cyclist and three-time Olympian. Thompson is a supporter of the Working Group and is also involved with anti-inclusion groups like Save Women's Sports. Thompson opposes inclusion of trans women in women's sports.She favors a separate "trans only" category, an idea that the Working Group has greenlit.

Fifth stumble: Segregation is wrong

I agree with the Working Group's "solution" for trans female student-athletes in every case except those going through puberty, who either refuse or don't have access to treatment to lower their levels of testosterone. Segregating them so that they'd have their own heats, events and receive scores separate from cisgender girls is wrong.

How would having them run around a track by themselves and be declared "the winner" be considered "fair?"

The outcome here would be transgender athletes losing the one thing that is at the heart of every sport: somebody wins and somebody loses. I don't claim to have a perfect solution to this dilemma, but segregating athletes who are transgender from their cisgender competitors means every trans athlete, even the ones who "win," lose.

The only path forward toward inclusion is one that gives every girl and every woman an equal opportunity to play sports. Only from that starting point can we all win.

Support your answers after reviewing the video and reading the articles.

1. In the Ennis article, she summarizes five stumbles.... with which stumble do you agree and which statement made by Ennis do you take issue, and why?

1. Transgender athletes of both sexes in secondary schools in Connecticut have the opportunity to participate in sports with the gender of which they identify. Do you agree with Connecticut's policy? Why or why not?

1. Can CIAC recognize a cisgender and transgender champion? Can CIAC create a separate field for transgender athletes? Why or why not? Do you agree? Why or why not?

1. What safety issues, if any, may occur when transgender male-to-female athletes participate in female team sports?

1. What future implications may result when transgender athletes are allowed to compete at the Olympic level in the sex category with which they identify?