Teenage girl track and field athletes are suing the Connecticut Association of Schools, the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference and other authorities for integrating biological men into women’s sports, which has allowed them to dominate.
According to the legal complaint, two male “transgender” students have been using their biological advantages to crush their female competitors in statewide track tournaments, effectively denying young women as a class the right to fair play, scholarship opportunities, and awards.
Starting in 2018, the two men, Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller, have become the only two serious contenders in CIAC Women’s track races.
In the June 2018 100m Women’s Outdoor Track CIAC State Championship, Terry Miller won with a time of 11.72 seconds, with Adraya Yearwood coming in second place. The closest female, Bridget Lalonde, came in 3rd place with a significantly worse time at 12.36 seconds.
In 2019, the 55m version of the race found similar results. Miller clocked in at 7.00s, Yearwood at 7.07s, and nearest female contender Cori Richardson finished with 7.24s. The 4th, 5th and 6th place women all clustered closely with Richardson’s time, effectively left in the dust by Miller and Yearwood.
These results have been repeated over and over again. Yearwood and Miller have won 15 state championships between them, when previously the same number of awards were shared by nine different girls. Miller consistently crushes its competitors, leading to it being named “All-Courant girls indoor track and field athlete of the year” for 2018-19.
The rules of the NCAA state that a man can compete in women’s sports after taking one year of testosterone suppressing hormones. The lawsuit argues that this does not take into account the drastic differences in lung capacity, bone structure and size, and musculature that testosterone induces after puberty that can never be reversed.
The ACLU juggernaut has announced that it plans to fight these little girls in open court. The legal resources at the ACLU’s disposal, which holds more than $400 million dollars in assets and spends $120 million a year, turns any case, no matter how compelling, into an attrition-laden trek into the Russian winter.
The track on which the plaintiffs make their case is full of loaded language, looking to tap the Civil Rights act to defend normal people for once. A problem could arise with their approach, since “civil rights” laws are facially unconstitutional and thus interpreted subjectively by judges.
A plebiscite on whether men should be able to compete in women’s athletics would be a lopsided affair, with most people voting against. Unfortunately, Americans do not have the right to vote on issues that effect their day to day lives. The trajectory of this trial will be up to the personal political persuasions of the Clinton-appointed judge in question, particularly in the face of pressure by Jewish media and his elite social peers.