Thread by @hamill_law

In addition to declaring war on Los Angeles and the Trump administration, Gavin Newsom also sued the federal government yesterday to demand inclusion of males in girls sports. Here is my reaction to the lawsuit:

Use of the term "cisgender" is disqualifying, but we're in San Francisco, and things are different there.

California refers to Ed Code 221.5(f), which requires that schools allow kids to use the facilities and play on teams that align with their gender identity instead of sex, as an "equal opportunity law." Which is ironic, because its logical end is the elimination of girls sports.

The State is mad that Harmeet Dhillon, AAG for Civil Rights at the US DOJ, demanded certification from California schools that they will comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution and refrain from implementing CIF Bylaw 300(D), which mirrors Ed Code 221.5(f).

According to the State, forcing girls to compete with males is necessary to "afford[] all students the benefits of an inclusive school environment, including participation in school sports, and prevent[] the serious harms that transgender students would suffer from a discriminatory, exclusionary policy."

What they are getting at here is that it is discriminatory to treat males as males if they *identify* as not male. Doing so violates the Equal Protection Clause, they say! Perhaps a radical leftist judge would agree. But I doubt a logical jurist could reach such a conclusion.

And ultimately, followed to its logical end, this means no more girls sports.

And then we get back to the problematic framing--that there is a "ban." There is no ban. There is a demand that the girls category remain for girls, and that males do not compete in the girls category.

OK now my brain really hurts. According to Bonta and Newsom, complying with the DOJ demand to stop allowing males to compete in girls sports forces school districts to violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Oh AND, the DOJ made this demand because they "hate transgender people." Not because they want fairness for girls. If you say that a "transgender woman" is a man pretending to be a woman, you hate "trans people" according to the state. I predict a First Amendment counter claim.

And now Rob Bonta and Gavin Newsom play doctor. They say a doctor assigns sex at birth!

Now psychologist Rob Bonta and Gavin Newsom say a "transgender identity" is not a mental illness. But if you require a "transgender girl" to participate in boys sports, you are harming his well being!

So they're not mentally ill, but then we get to the suicide stats.

If you protect girls sports from male invasion, you are increasing risk of suicide in males who want to play girls sports by 72%, according to the state.

"Trans girls" can only experience benefits associated with sex separated school athletics by participating on teams with girls, according to the State. I want to be a fly on the wall in @HarmeetKDhillon 's office while reading this.

@HarmeetKDhillon I am getting impatient and need to get to an appointment so I'll try to wrap this up. They're very mad that "trans girls" are called boys.

@HarmeetKDhillon Count One: Dec relief that California law allowing males in women's sports and spaces doesn't violate the EPC.

@HarmeetKDhillon Count II: DOJ didn't have authority to demand certification by LEAs.

@HarmeetKDhillon Count III: California did not have notice that the federal government would require them to keep males out of girls sports to maintain funding under Title 9.

@HarmeetKDhillon Count IV: Defendants can't condition any federal funding on the State or its LEAs refusing to allow K-12 students to participate in athletic programs in accordance with their gender identity, because such a funding condition would violate the Spending Clause.

@HarmeetKDhillon Count V: To the extent that Defendants seek to impose a new condition on California LEAs’ federal funding through the Certification Demand Letter, such a condition violates the Spending Clause and is thus contrary to law and unconstitutional.

In conclusion: buckle up for the showdown between common sense and radical ideology. The setting for round 1 is a San Francisco district court. Round 2 is the 9th Circuit. Final boss: SCOTUS. Newsom says it's deeply unfair for boys to compete with girls, but when it comes time to act he doubles down on unfairness and sues to keep boys in girls sports and spaces.