Barks&Purrs wrote:
This is a lose/lose situation for the county with this ban. If I am allowed to host my competitive events for women, including both cis and trans women, under the EO rules and gain the full benefit of the county facilities like any other person, then what what does the EO achieve? Why should we have this superfluous rule?
If I am denied the beneficial use of the county facilities because the pairing of cis and trans women in events is disallowed, then isn’t that a violation of my freedom of association? It’s a broad government restriction that interferes with my events, which are clearly not harmful to anyone. There is no legitimate government interest served by refusing me permits.
The sports governing bodies are not government and are not subject to the same 1st Amendment restrictions. Thus, they would be the correct entity to create rules to protect competition in sports.
I think the women who are hoping to preserve fairness in their sport wouldn't consider this a loss.
And for the Nth time you are not denied the opportunity to use facilities with any combination of members AT ALL. You are completely free to participate and use them as you wish. So long as you fill out the paperwork correctly.
Edit: not just women, but all individuals hoping to preserve fairness would consider this a win.