Thread by @FondOfBeetles

What is absolutely remarkable about the brief is that it is an equally good argument for protecting sports for females. One could almost regurgitate it, replacing just a few words, and submit it in *defence* of HB500.

https://twitter.com/wddaughter/status/1341366287264604160

It appeals to the value - personal, social, academic - of sports participation, the importance thereof for physical and mental well-being.

It’s always worth revisiting the benefits of sport, but HB500 is not to prevent participation. Do they realise this?

They appear to be ignorant of the premise that the wonderful benefits of sports *should be equally available to females*.

In fact, there is a federal law called Title IX to ensure that is the case.

The brief, quite simply, misses the point, and a clever lawyer might consider batting it straight back at them.

It is, fundamentally, pages of ‘be kind’.

There is nothing of substance in there that will further understanding of the nuances a case like this encompasses.

There is no mention of sex-segregation, competitive structures, protection from male advantage.

All of the females signing this have themselves benefitted from a protected sports category established by their civil rights law.

I know Rapinoe has goddess-like properties on the field (and an attitude off the field to match), but she must know - she simply must - that she wouldn’t stand a chance against a decent male who wanted her place.

Right here in the introduction, starting from a false premise that renders the following pages obsolete.

The brief would therefore make a *better* argument for protection of female sports.