Virginia prepares to finalize transgender athlete restrictions
(Stock photo by)
A heated fight over transgender athlete participation in Virginia schools is coming to a head this week, as state high school sports leaders prepare to finalize controversial new restrictions — despite mounting pressure from advocates urging them to reconsider.
On Wednesday, the Virginia High School League (VHSL) Executive Committee will meet for the first time since voting nearly two months ago to limit competition in girls' sports to students assigned female at birth, following an executive order signed by President Donald Trump.
Previously, VHSL policy allowed transgender students to compete on teams aligning with their gender identity, though under specific conditions. The expected would formalize changes to the league's handbook and policy manual.
'It is not too late for the Virginia High School League to find clarity and courage and to return to an inclusive policy that is sound, both ethically and legally,' said Auden Perino, senior counsel for LGBTQI+ equality at the National Women's Law Center.
Perino said the February decision has caused 'emotional harm' to students and their families. While the change impacts only a small number of students, they emphasized that does not make the issue any less important.
The push for the policy change has largely been driven by concerns around fair competition.
In February, Gov. Glenn Youngkin called the committee's decision 'just common sense' after appearing alongside Trump when he signed the executive order threatening to cut federal funds for those that don't comply.
'Biological boys should not be competing against girls,' Youngkin wrote on social media.
Victoria Cobb, president of the conservative group Family Foundation, said in a statement that it's 'high time' for the Virginia High School League to do right by girls and protect their safety.
'Participation in sports develops girls into confident leaders,' Cobb said. 'When girls step away from the arena because biological boys steal their titles and scholarships, everyone loses.'
However, Perino also pointed out that the 'real threat' to high school sports is the chronic underfunding of women's athletics and the widespread, often unreported harassment and assault cases affecting athletes — issues the NWLC has been tracking for over 50 years.
'These are the real threats to girls involved in school sports,' Perino said. 'Obviously, trans youth are responsible for creating zero of these problems, and in fact, are harmed by all of them, just like cisgender youth.'
Perino said if Virginians want to address and prevent sex discrimination in women's school sports, they should focus on these 'real and urgent threats where the gender justice movement has correctly maintained its focus, and we see from far right policymakers only a resounding silence on these topics and a truly creepy fixation on the bodies and lives of a few trans girls and women being scapegoated for political gain.'
Other advocates in Virginia are objecting to the changes and hope the committee will reconsider the action taken in February. Some view the vote as a harmful message — one that affects not just transgender athletes but Virginia's broader reputation, undermining being 'fair,' 'inclusive,' and providing 'opportunity for everyone.'
'Our hope is that maybe there is a world where they would reverse and go back to the original policy, but if anything, we want to send a strong message to them that they've made the wrong decision,' said Narissa Rahaman, executive director for Equality Virginia, a LGBTQ rights advocacy group. 'This is impacting community members, and it's going to impact more than just transgender student athletes, who want to play.'
Rahaman said the committee's February decision overturned a decade-long policy that was working, noting that the league had initially told the Richmond Times-Dispatch it did not plan to make any changes in January.
Since the policy's establishment, Rahaman said, Virginia has allowed 42 transgender athletes to play on sports teams matching their identity over the past 10 years.
During the last legislative session, bills proposing to require K-12 public schools and higher education institutions to label each sports team as either boys, girls, or coed — based on the biological sex of the players — failed in the General Assembly.
Del. Delores Oates, R-Warren, and Sen. Tammy Mulchi, R-Mecklenburg, who carried the proposals, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
'Protecting fairness and safety in girls' sports is a commonsense principle supported by the majority of Virginians,' Oates said in a statement to The Mercury. 'I commend the Virginia High School League for taking action to ensure female athletes compete on a level playing field.
This is about preserving the gains made under Title IX — making sure girls have the same opportunities, scholarships, and team experiences that generations fought hard to secure. We stand with parents, coaches, and students who want to preserve those opportunities, and we will continue working to uphold them.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
21 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Live updates: Los Angeles reels after three days of immigration protests
Tensions in Los Angeles escalated Sunday night as thousands of protesters took to the streets in response to President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard, blocking off a major freeway and setting self-driving cars on fire as law enforcement used tear gas, rubber bullets and flash bangs to control the crowd. Update: Date: 2025-06-09 13:10:36 Title: Trump was awake past midnight raging against the protests in LA and calling for a crackdown Content: 'Looking really bad in L.A. BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!' he wrote on Truth Social at 12:16 a.m. ET. Trump has already deployed 2,000 members of the National Guard over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The military said 500 Marines were on standby. 'ARREST THE PEOPLE IN FACE MASKS, NOW!' Trump wrote at 12:19 cited Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell's recent comments to defend his response to the protests. 'Don't let these thugs get away with this. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!' Trump wrote at 12:14 a.m. 'This thing has gotten out of control,' McDonell said Sunday. 'We have great cops in Southern California here that work together all the time,' he said. But he added that 'looking at the violence tonight, I think we gotta make a reassessment.' Update: Date: 2025-06-09 13:02:48 Title: PHOTOS: Protesters clash with law enforcement in Los Angeles Content: Update: Date: 2025-06-09 12:56:19 Title: Australian reporter hit by nonlethal round during live report from the protests Content: An Australian television journalist was hit in the leg by a nonlethal round Sunday while reporting live from downtown Los Angeles. Video of the incident released by 9News shows correspondent Lauren Tomasi reporting live when an officer behind her suddenly raises their firearm and fires a nonlethal round at close range. Tomasi, who doesn't appear to be wearing personal protective equipment, cries out in pain and clutches her lower leg as she and her cameraman quickly move away from the police line. 'You just (expletive) shot the reporter,' a voice off-camera can be heard shouting. The shooting came after a tense afternoon in which Tomasi and her crew were caught between riot police and protesters. At one point, she struggled to speak over the sound of clashes, while a protester grabbed the camera mid-broadcast. 'They've told people to get out of this area, and protesters have been refusing,' she reported. 'We are safe here. It's just noisy. But you can see the volatility.' Speaking later Monday to 9News, Tomasi confirmed she was safe and unharmed. Update: Date: 2025-06-09 12:54:00 Title: Clashes escalated Sunday as National Guard troops arrived downtown Content: Starting Sunday morning, the troops stood shoulder to shoulder, carrying long guns and riot shields as protesters shouted 'shame' and 'go home.' After some closely approached the guard members, another set of uniformed officers advanced on the group, shooting smoke-filled canisters into the street. Minutes later, the Los Angeles Police Department fired rounds of crowd-control munitions to disperse the protesters, who they said were assembled unlawfully. Much of the group then moved to block traffic on the 101 freeway until state patrol officers cleared them from the roadway by late afternoon. Nearby, at least four self-driving Waymo cars were set on fire, sending large plumes of black smoke into the sky and exploding intermittently as the electric vehicles burned. By evening, police had issued an unlawful assembly order shutting down several blocks of downtown Los Angeles. Flash bangs echoed out every few seconds into the evening. Update: Date: 2025-06-09 12:50:52 Title: Protests intensified on Sunday night in Los Angeles after Trump deployed National Guard troops Content: Sunday's protests in Los Angeles were centered in several blocks of downtown. It was the third and most intense day of demonstrations against Trump's immigration crackdown in the region, as the arrival of around 300 Guard troops spurred anger and fear among many residents. Many protesters dispersed as evening fell and police declared an unlawful assembly, a precursor to officers moving in and making arrests of people who don't leave. Some of those remaining threw objects at police from behind a makeshift barrier that spanned the width of a street and others hurled chunks of concrete, rocks, electric scooters and fireworks at California Highway Patrol officers and their vehicles. Officers ran under an overpass to take cover. The Guard was deployed specifically to protect federal buildings, including the downtown detention center where protesters concentrated. Several dozen people were arrested throughout the weekend of protest. One was detained Sunday for throwing a Molotov cocktail at police, and another for ramming a motorcycle into a line of officers. ▶ Read more about the weekend's protests
Atlantic
31 minutes ago
- Atlantic
‘We're Just Becoming a Weapon of the State'
Since winning President Donald Trump's nomination to serve as the director of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya—a health economist and prominent COVID contrarian who advocated for reopening society in the early months of the pandemic—has pledged himself to a culture of dissent. 'Dissent is the very essence of science,' Bhattacharya said at his confirmation hearing in March. 'I'll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment where scientists, including early-career scientists and scientists that disagree with me, can express disagreement, respectfully.' Two months into his tenure at the agency, hundreds of NIH officials are taking Bhattacharya at his word. More than 300 officials, from across all of the NIH's 27 institutes and centers, have signed and sent a letter to Bhattacharya that condemns the changes that have thrown the agency into chaos in recent months—and calls on their director to reverse some of the most damaging shifts. Since January, the agency has been forced by Trump officials to fire thousands of its workers and rescind or withhold funding from thousands of research projects. Tomorrow, Bhattacharya is set to appear before a Senate appropriations subcommittee to discuss a proposed $18 billion slash to the NIH budget—about 40 percent of the agency's current allocation. The letter, titled the Bethesda Declaration (a reference to the NIH's location in Bethesda, Maryland), is modeled after the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter published by Bhattacharya and two of his colleagues in October 2020 that criticized 'the prevailing COVID-19 policies' and argued that it was safe—even beneficial—for most people to resume life as normal. The approach that the Great Barrington Declaration laid out was, at the time, widely denounced by public-health experts, including the World Health Organization and then–NIH director Francis Collins, as dangerous and scientifically unsound. The allusion in the NIH letter, officials told me, isn't meant glibly: 'We hoped he might see himself in us as we were putting those concerns forward,' Jenna Norton, a program director at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and one of the letter's organizers, told me. None of the NIH officials I spoke with for this story could recall another time in their agency's history when staff have spoken out so publicly against a director. But none of them could recall, either, ever seeing the NIH so aggressively jolted away from its core mission. 'It was time enough for us to speak out,' Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the National Cancer Institute, who has signed her name to the letter, told me. To preserve American research, government scientists—typically focused on scrutinizing and funding the projects most likely to advance the public's health—are now instead trying to persuade their agency's director to help them win a political fight with the White House. Bhattacharya, the NIH, and the Department of Health and Human Services did not respond immediately to a request for comment. The agency spends most of its nearly $48 billion budget powering science: It is the world's single-largest public funder of biomedical research. But since January, the NIH has canceled thousands of grants —originally awarded on the basis of merit—for political reasons: supporting DEI programming, having ties to universities that the administration has accused of anti-Semitism, sending resources to research initiatives in other countries, advancing scientific fields that Trump officials have deemed wasteful. Prior to 2025, grant cancellations were virtually unheard-of. But one official at the agency, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of professional repercussions, told me that staff there now spend nearly as much time terminating grants as awarding them. And the few prominent projects that the agency has since been directed to fund appear either to be geared toward confirming the administration's biases on specific health conditions, or to benefit NIH leaders. 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state,' another official, who signed their name anonymously to the letter, told me. 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' NIH officials have tried to voice their concerns in other ways. At internal meetings, leaders of the agency's institutes and centers have questioned major grant-making policy shifts. Some prominent officials have resigned. Current and former NIH staffers have been holding weekly vigils in Bethesda, commemorating, in the words of the organizers, ' the lives and knowledge lost through NIH cuts.' (Attendees are encouraged to wear black.) But these efforts have done little to slow the torrent of changes at the agency. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH and one of the letter's signers, told me that the NIH fellows union, which he is part of, has sent Bhattacharya repeated requests to engage in discussion since his first week at the NIH. 'All of those have been ignored,' Morgan said. By formalizing their objections and signing their names to them, officials told me, they hope that Bhattacharya will finally feel compelled to respond. (To add to the public pressure, Jeremy Berg, who led the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences until 2011, is also organizing a public letter of support for the Bethesda Declaration, in partnership with Stand Up for Science, which has organized rallies in support of research.) Scientists elsewhere at HHS, which oversees the NIH, have become unusually public in defying political leadership, too. Last month, after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—in a bizarre departure from precedent—announced on social media that he was sidestepping his own agency, the CDC, and purging COVID shots from the childhood-immunization schedule, CDC officials chose to retain the vaccines in their recommendations, under the condition of shared decision making with a health-care provider. Many signers of the Bethesda letter are hopeful that Bhattacharya, 'as a scientist, has some of the same values as us,' Benjamin Feldman, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, told me. Perhaps, with his academic credentials and commitment to evidence, he'll be willing to aid in the pushback against the administration's overall attacks on science, and defend the agency's ability to power research. But other officials I spoke with weren't so optimistic. Many at the NIH now feel they work in a 'culture of fear,' Norton said. Since January, NIH officials have told me that they have been screamed at and bullied by HHS personnel pushing for policy changes; some of the NIH leaders who have been most outspoken against leadership have also been forcibly reassigned to irrelevant positions. At one point, Norton said, after she fought for a program focused on researcher diversity, some members of NIH leadership came to her office and cautioned her that they didn't want to see her on the next list of mass firings. (In conversations with me, all of the named officials I spoke with emphasized that they were speaking in their personal capacity, and not for the NIH.) Bhattacharya, who took over only two months ago, hasn't been the Trump appointee driving most of the decisions affecting the NIH—and therefore might not have the power to reverse or overrule them. HHS officials have pressured agency leadership to defy court orders, as I've reported; mass cullings of grants have been overseen by DOGE. And as much as Bhattacharya might welcome dissent, he so far seems unmoved by it. In early May, Berg emailed Bhattacharya to express alarm over the NIH's severe slowdown in grant making, and to remind him of his responsibilities as director to responsibly shepherd the funds Congress had appropriated to the agency. The next morning, according to the exchange shared with me by Berg, Bhattacharya replied saying that, 'contrary to the assertion you make in the letter,' his job was to ensure that the NIH's money would be spent on projects that advance American health, rather than 'on ideological boondoggles and on dangerous research.' And at a recent NIH town hall, Bhattacharya dismissed one staffer's concerns that the Trump administration was purging the identifying variable of gender from scientific research. (Years of evidence back its use.) He echoed, instead, the Trump talking point that 'sex is a very cleanly defined variable,' and argued that gender shouldn't be included as 'a routine question in order to make an ideological point.' The officials I spoke with had few clear plans for what to do if their letter goes unheeded by leadership. Inside the agency, most see few levers left to pull. At the town hall, Bhattacharya also endorsed the highly contentious notion that human research started the pandemic—and noted that NIH-funded science, specifically, might have been to blame. When dozens of staffers stood and left the auditorium in protest, prompting applause that interrupted Bhattacharya, he simply smiled
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
5 Ways Trump's ‘Big, Beautiful Bill' Could Impact Your Wallet
President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' which has passed in the House of Representatives, has sparked fierce debate. While the bill promises growth and relief in some areas, it also introduces cuts, cost shifts and structural changes that could impact everything from healthcare premiums to loan payments — and affect the budgets of everyday Americans. Read Next: Check Out: Here are five key ways this sweeping legislation could affect your wallet. One of the bill's most consequential provisions is the move to make the 2017 tax cuts permanent. Experts said these tax cuts could extend financial relief to many individuals and families, encouraging long-term economic growth. 'These tax cuts provide much-needed relief to small businesses and individuals and encouraged billions of dollars in economic activity and investment,' said Javier Palomarez, founder and CEO of the United States Hispanic Business Council. 'Extending these cuts would allow businesses to invest and grow at a faster rate.' He explained that these cuts could have a positive impact overall. 'Extending these cuts could have a far greater, and a more positive impact than changes to SNAP or Medicaid,' he said. Learn More: One overlooked consequence of the bill is how it could quietly raise the cost of borrowing across the board. From home mortgages to car loans, everyday Americans could find themselves paying more to afford basic milestones. 'The proposed legislation could increase your expenses by increasing your mortgage payments for a house,' said Steven Conners, founder and president of Conners Wealth Management. 'Mortgage rates are high but still going up. Furthermore, this doesn't count higher loan rates for car loans and other purchases that are more significant in price, where we ordinarily buy them through a loan which is based off the bond market.' He added that the bond market is already reacting to the bill, signaling that borrowing costs could keep rising. With national debt on the rise and no clear ceiling for interest rates yet, Conners said that the overall trend points toward more expensive loans. According to a bill analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, by 2034, about 16 million people could lose health coverage and become uninsured due to a variety of proposals in the bill, including Medicaid cuts. Middle-income families who rely on Affordable Care Act (ACA) support or Medicaid expansion could also be affected. 'Premiums will most likely increase,' Conners said. 'For those less fortunate, Medicaid will see less funding, which ultimately puts more pressure on this part of the population.' Working families who rely on SNAP benefits could feel the sting of the bill almost immediately. A combination of benefit reductions and new restrictions could make it more difficult for many households to afford sufficient food. 'The most immediate impact will be the reduction of benefits received by those enrolled in SNAP,' Palomarez said. He explained that these cuts, as well as the administration's push to have states restrict SNAP-eligible items, could result in strained food budgets for many Americans. While many assume that cutting SNAP benefits would affect only low-income households, the impact can ripple across entire communities and state economies. A Commonwealth Fund analysis found that reduced food assistance can lead to job losses and decreased business activity, even in places far from where the cuts occur. For instance, groceries purchased in Georgia might support farmers in Kansas or processors in Tennessee, and a clinic closure in Louisiana could result in a nurse losing her job in Texas, per The Commonwealth Fund. One of the bill's measures targets the opaque practices of pharmacy benefit managers. 'Certain provisions related to pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) reform have the potential to significantly lower prescription prices for everyday Americans,' Palomarez said. 'Unlike the strict price control measures threatened by the administration earlier this year, the Big Beautiful Bill relies on transparency with consumers and mandated reporting to NADAC to ensure consumers can make the most informed decisions.' Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 3 Luxury SUVs That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Summer 2025 5 Cities You Need To Consider If You're Retiring in 2025 I'm a Retired Boomer: 6 Bills I Canceled This Year That Were a Waste of Money This article originally appeared on 5 Ways Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Could Impact Your Wallet Sign in to access your portfolio
