Connect with us

International

Multiple women’s college volleyball teams forfeit matches rather than face male opponent

Published

7 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Sarah Holliday

Southern Utah, Boise State, and Wyoming universities forfeited women’s volleyball matches against San José State over the inclusion of a male on the female team, sparking Christian non-profit Concerned Women for America to launch a lawsuit against San José State.

Both Southern Utah University (SUU) and Boise State University’s (BSU) female volleyball teams made the decision to refuse competing against a team with a male-born player.

San José State University’s (SJSU) Blaire Fleming (born Brayden Fleming) is the 6’1 biological male competing on the SJSU female volleyball team – the individual various outlets have attributed to the school’s undefeated winning streak. However, after reassessing their initial decision, the University of Wyoming (UW) has added itself to the list of schools demanding fairness and safety in women’s sports.

When UW first learned of the transgender-identifying opponent, they first decided to move forward  with their October 5 game. But not long after BSU chose to forfeit, “It appears [UW] … had a change-of-heart,” wrote OutKick’s Dan Zaksheske in response to the team announcing they would, in fact, not compete.

SUU was the first school to opt out of play against SJSU in a preseason matchup and BSU was the first to cancel conference play. Both teams did not explicitly state their reason for forfeiting, and UW also kept their public statement vague. They shared in a statement from Tuesday:

After a lengthy discussion, the University of Wyoming will not play its scheduled conference match against San Jose State University. Per Mountain West Conference policy, the conference will record the match as a forfeit and a loss for Wyoming.

But as Zaksheske added, “While Wyoming is the latest school to cancel a match against San Jose State, don’t be surprised if more schools follow suit.”

It turns out SJSU chose to initially hide the fact that Fleming is a biological male – from both his own teammates and other competitors. This reality, alongside an increasing number of colleges refusing to compete, has not merely sparked controversy, but action as well.

The conservative Christian non-profit Concerned Women for America (CWA) has filed a complaint against SJSU. “We want to protect the integrity of women’s sports but also the safety of these female athletes,” said Macy Petty, a CWA legislative assistant and a NCAA volleyball athlete.

According to Petty, the issue is rooted in the fact that “many of these schools were unaware that there was a male athlete on” the female team. “We just want to make sure that these schools know exactly what is going on in this athletic program because the NCAA and SJSU had not previously given them the decency to even let them know what was happening.”

In a comment to The Washington Stand, Doreen Denny, CWA senior advisor, stated, “What is happening in NCAA women’s volleyball is a game changer.” As she went on to say, this is the first time we’re seeing “NCAA member institutions … taking a stand against the NCAA’s trans athlete policy that directly discriminates against female athletes and are upholding the integrity of women’s sports.”

CWA CEO Penny Nance also praised UW’s decision in a statement, emphasizing her gratitude that the university “has taken seriously the issues of unfairness and discrimination against female athletes when males compete in women’s sports.” She added, “No NCAA member institution should have to be making this choice.”

In addition to CWA’s complaint, former University of Kentucky swimmer Riley Gaines has filed a lawsuit against SJSU. Included as a plaintiff in this lawsuit is Brooke Slusser, a player on the SJSU volleyball team. The document reads:

Due to the NCAA’s Transgender Eligibility Policies which permit Fleming to play on the SJSU women’s volleyball team and which led to SJSU recruiting Fleming, giving Fleming a scholarship, and allowing Fleming to be in positions to violate Brooke’s right to bodily privacy, Brooke has suffered physical and emotional injuries, embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress, mental anguish and suffering.

In comments shared with OutKick, Slusser said, “It’s crazy to say, but it was an easy decision for me to join because it’s something I truly believe in.… This is something that so many people do care about. It’s just that so many people are scared to talk about it.”

“While these schools have not given a full explanation for their decisions to forfeit matches against San Jose State University,” concluded Denny, “their actions are speaking louder than words.”

This article is reprinted with permission from the Family Research Council, publishers of The Washington Stand at washingtonstand.com.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author

illegal immigration

Court rules in favor of Texas in razor wire case

Published on

From The Center Square

By

Attorney General Ken Paxton also said the ruling was a “huge win for Texas…. We sued immediately when the federal government was observed destroying fences to let illegal aliens enter, and we’ve fought every step of the way for Texas sovereignty and security.”

A panel of three judges on the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Texas in a lawsuit filed over its concertina wire barriers.

The court ruled 2-1 in a case that may set the tone for two other cases before the court related to Texas’ border security operations.

Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote for the majority, with Judge Don Willett joining him. Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez dissented, arguing Texas did not meet “its burden to show a waiver of sovereign immunity or a likelihood of success on the merits.”

The ruling was issued 13 months after Texas sued the Biden administration after it destroyed concertina wire barriers it erected on state land.

The court was asked to decide whether Border Patrol agents can legally cut concertina wire fencing erected by Texas law enforcement along its border with Mexico. The Biden administration ordered Gov. Greg Abbott to remove it, arguing he was interfering with federal immigration operations. Abbott refused, arguing that the administration was facilitating illegal entry and violating federal law. In response, the administration ordered Border Patrol agents to use a bulldozer and remove wire fencing. Abbott sued, arguing they were destroying Texas property and Texas has the legal authority to erect barriers on state land.

Texas requested the district court to issue an injunction to block Border Patrol agents from removing the fencing, which it denied despite agreeing with Texas’ arguments.

The court “agreed with Texas on the facts: not only was Border Patrol unhampered by the wire, but its agents had breached the wire numerous times ‘for no apparent purpose other than to allow migrants easier entrance further inland,’” the Fifth Circuit’s 75-page ruling states. However, it denied Texas’ request arguing the federal government had sovereign immunity.

Texas next appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which granted the injunction pending appeal. The Biden administration appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which vacated the injunction without any stated reason.

The Supreme Court’s ruling didn’t deter Texas, which continued building and erecting concertina wire in the Eagle Pass area, and later established the military base for Texas’ border security mission, Operation Lone Star, there. OLS officers also expanded concertina wire barriers in other key areas along its border.

“The Texas National Guard continues to hold the line in Eagle Pass,” Abbott said at the time. “Texas will not back down from our efforts to secure the border in Biden’s absence.”

The three-judge panel ruled that Texas “is entitled to a preliminary injunction.” The ruling states that the Biden administration “clearly waived sovereign immunity as to Texas’s state law claims under § 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act,” which it says “is supported by a flood of uncontradicted circuit precedent to which the United States has no answer.”

The Fifth Circuit also rejected other Biden administration arguments, including that Texas was erecting barriers to safeguard its own property, not to “regulate Border Patrol.”

The ruling reversed the district court’s judgment and granted Texas’ preliminary injunction. The court also prohibited the federal government from “damaging, destroying, or otherwise interfering with Texas’s c-wire fence in the vicinity of Eagle Pass,” including Shelby Park, which Abbott shut down after learning that the Biden administration was using it as a staging ground to facilitate illegal entry into the US.

Abbott lauded the Fifth Circuit ruling, saying, “The federal court of appeals just ruled that Texas has the right to build the razor wire border wall that we have constructed to deny illegal entry into our state and that Biden was wrong to cut our razor wire. We continue adding more razor wire border barrier.”

Attorney General Ken Paxton also said the ruling was a “huge win for Texas.”

“The Biden Administration has been enjoined from damaging, destroying, or otherwise interfering with Texas’s border fencing. We sued immediately when the federal government was observed destroying fences to let illegal aliens enter, and we’ve fought every step of the way for Texas sovereignty and security.”

With weeks left in the administration, the concertina wire barrier case is unlikely to be appealed for a full court review.

In May, the court is scheduled to hear arguments on a lawsuit related to Texas’ marine barriers in the Rio Grande River, unless the case is dropped by the incoming Trump administration. Another case before the court is over Texas’ border security law, SB 4.

Continue Reading

Daily Caller

Let Them Eat Cake

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Bob Ehrlich

It is “lessons learned” season for the political class, but recent anecdotes reflect the left’s selective takeaways from the campaign and election of 2024.

— Former President Bill Clinton bemoans the advent of “zillions” of right-wing websites as a reason why the Harris-Walz ticket had such difficulties in reaching out to rural America.

— Donna Brazile insists (on Bill Maher’s show) that while the Democrats’ primary challenge remains poor communication, the voters still really do agree with the Party’s platform.

— Bernie Sanders (again) criticizes the out-of-touch “economic elites” presently in charge of the Democrat Party because…they are not progressive enough.

—  The city council president in Erie, Pa., associates red-hatted supporters of President-elect Donald Trump with the KKK … and does not back down when confronted by the media and MAGA supporters.

— Actors Alec Baldwin and Sharon Stone deride American voters as “ignorant,” “uneducated” and “uninformed” at an Italian film festival.

These and similar storylines are illustrative but certainly not new. Indeed, I still remember following a Democratic member of Congress on one of the cable networks (in the aftermath of the 2016 election) wherein he lamented Hillary Clinton’s hemorrhaging of working-class voters — after which he assured the audience that his party would continue to protect sanctuary cities…

Some will write off these tin-ear reactions to post-election frustration or simple hardheadedness, but there is something more profound going on here. To wit, this generation of Democrats is far too captive to progressive ideology for them to conduct a detached, deep-dive postmortem on why so many people who work with their hands, do not subscribe to The New York Times and have never visited Martha’s Vineyard have become so turned off by woke values (some on the right diagnose it as a “mind virus”) and the progressive platform foisted on them these past four years.

Alas, there is another problem for the Democrats going forward that has far less to do with substance but far more to do with attitude. To wit: Flyover America has been paying attention and is now intimately familiar with the litany of “Let Them Eat Cake” Trump-era indictments that have spewed forth from members of the ruling class directed to the ways, means, tastes and preferences of middle America.  (President Joe Biden’s “garbage” characterization of Trump voters and Mark Cuban’s weird but instructive charge that Trump lacks “strong, intelligent women” around him now joining Obama’s “bitter clingers” and Hillary’s “irredeemable deplorables” in the Democrats’ Hall of Shame.)

This mean but persistent and tone-deaf attempt to defame half the country may go over well in front of the appropriate crowd (Harris’ advising two pro-life protestors to leave her rally and go to the smaller Trump rally down the street comes to mind) but remains a major obstacle to any serious attempt to recapture Democrats’ support within working class America. Phrased another way, when so many people tell you what they really think of you over an extended period of time … you should probably believe them. And now — to the dismay of millions of self-righteous progressives — it appears church/synagogue/mosque attending, Walmart consuming, Second Amendment believing, woke rejecting, blue supporting America Firsters received the message loud and clear.

They voted accordingly.

Bob Ehrlich is a former governor of Maryland, member of Congress and state legislator. He is the author of five books on American politics and opinion pieces that have appeared in America’s leading newspapers and periodicals. He and his wife, Kendel, can be seen and heard on their weekly podcast, “Bottom Line with Bob & Kendel Ehrlich.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X