AB Hernandez: The 16-year-old transgender girl at heart of sports row in California
The stadium in Clovis, a city in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountains, is dressed for the occasion.
Huge banners welcome athletes from across the state, food stalls line the concourse and teenagers sell event programmes.
"Good luck to all the athletes and their coaches," the inside of the programme reads. Many of the athletes have trained for years and, for some, receiving lucrative university scholarships rests on their performance here.
But one issue, one competitor, is dominating the chatter. "Which one is she?" I hear a group of boys asking.
They're talking about AB Hernandez, a 16-year-old transgender girl, who is now the focus of a legal, political and cultural row.
She was born a boy but has transitioned and now competes against the girls.
Hernandez is favourite to win the long jump and the triple jump and is also competing in the high jump.
Her inclusion in the girls category has become a national conversation.
As she competes, a plane flies over the stadium trailing a banner, which reads "No boys in girls sports." It was organised and paid for by two women's advocacy groups.
A small protest is also taking place on the road outside. "Save girls sports," one poster reads. "XX does not equal XY," reads another.
Aurelia Moore is a local mum and sport fan. "These kids get up at the crack of dawn," she says.
"They work out before school, they go to school, they work out after school, the weekends they work out. And for that just to be taken away so that we can make a boy feel better is just it's wrong. It's very wrong."
Transgender inclusion is a thorny issue but a vote winner for President Trump, who campaigned with a promise to "kick out men from women's sport."
He signed an executive order seeking to ban transgender women from female sport. Trump is now threatening to withdraw federal funding from California over Hernandez's participation in this athletics event.
In a social media post he wrote: "As a Male, he was a less than average competitor. As a Female, this transitioned person is practically unbeatable."
'No special advantage'
Transgender rights activists attended the event to support Hernandez, cheering her efforts in the high jump. Jessica Schultz is a representative of the party for socialism and liberation, a communist political group.
"All girls deserve to play in girls sports and trans girls are girls," she says.
"So they don't have any extra extreme advantage than somebody who is naturally tall or has naturally wide wingspan like Michael Phelps.
"I'm surprised that the president has time to concern himself with a high school athletic competition," she added, "but it is not surprising because he has a lot of hateful ideals."
Hernandez has required security at previous events because of abuse against her. A video recently went viral showing her mother being harangued by mums of other student athletes.
One of the voices in the video is Sonja Shaw, a school board president for Chino Valley, a district of California.
"I said, boys are boys, girls are girls," she says, "And then, I turned to the stands and I'm like, 'is there anybody that's okay with a boy competing against the girls right now?'"
Girls 'can't win'
There are hundreds of thousands of high school students playing sport in California, but only a handful of publicised cases of transgender girls playing girls' sport.
I ask Sonja if the issue is being overblown? "Absolutely not because it's growing," she says.
"You have girls who should be on that first-place podium. They work their whole life. Their dream is to be a winner and they can't even win, they can't even compete against these boys."
In response to the backlash about Hernandez's participation, California is now allowing more cisgender girls to compete here.
They may also award two winners if Hernandez finishes first.
It's a messy and controversial situation and it's not going away.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
28 minutes ago
- Reuters
Chargers WR Ladd McConkey (undisclosed) returns to practice
August 13 - Los Angeles Chargers wide receiver Ladd McConkey was back at practice and participating in 11-on-11 drills Tuesday after missing time with an undisclosed injury, according to The Athletic. Chargers head coach Jim Harbaugh had previously said that McConkey was "working through something minor" while not disclosing which body part he had injured. McConkey had been limited or absent the last two weeks of practice before returning on Tuesday, per media reports. McConkey also refused to disclose what injury he had been dealing with, simply saying, "I'm good." "I feel really good. It felt great to get back out there a little bit, catching passes," McConkey said. " ... I feel like I'm (100 percent) now. It's just building everything back up, getting in the swing of things, getting my conditioning back where it needs to be." McConkey is looking to build on a breakout rookie season in 2024 during which he led the team and set Chargers regular-season rookie records with 82 receptions and 1,149 receiving yards, breaking records previously set by Keenan Allen in 2013, to go along with his seven touchdown catches. In his playoff debut, McConkey set an NFL rookie postseason record with 197 receiving yards in the Chargers' 32-12 loss at Houston. He scored the team's lone touchdown of the game on an 86-yard catch-and-run scramble into the end zone. -Field Level Media
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
California says Trump sent military to 'silence' LA protests
Aug 12 (Reuters) - The U.S. government's unprecedented use of National Guard troops in Los Angeles to protect officers carrying out President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown was illegal and should be ended, a lawyer for the state of California told a federal judge on Tuesday. The lawyer said evidence presented from the landmark trial that began on Monday showed that soldiers had violated a 19th century law that bars the military from civilian law enforcement. 'The government wanted a show of military force so great that any opposition to their agenda was silenced," said the lawyer, Meghan Strong of the California Attorney General's Office. Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton countered that there was "substantial violence" in Los Angeles meriting military intervention and that the troops were only there to protect federal agents and property. Trump ordered 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles in June in response to days of unrest and protests sparked by mass immigration raids. California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, opposed the move and sued, alleging it violated prohibitions on the use of the military in law enforcement. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco will determine whether the government violated the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA). Breyer will also hear arguments on Wednesday on Newsom's legal right to bring the case. The judge has not said when he will rule. The trial comes as Trump said he was taking the extraordinary step of deploying the National Guard to fight crime in Washington and suggested he might take similar actions in other American cities. In the California trial, the administration sought to prove that the military was only used to protect federal personnel or federal property, which the administration said are permissible exceptions to the PCA. California, meanwhile, sought to convince Breyer that troops crossed the line by setting up roadblocks, diverting traffic and making arrests, which Strong described as prohibited policing actions. Government witnesses testified that although those actions are generally prohibited, there are exceptions when federal agents or property are in danger. Breyer appeared skeptical at times of the government's assertion that Trump had sole discretion to decide when troops were needed. The president said in June the protests amounted to a rebellion against federal authority. "Is it a 'rebellion' because the president says it is a 'rebellion'?" Breyer asked Hamilton during the government's closing argument. Many of the troops have been withdrawn from Los Angeles, but California Attorney General Rob Bonta said on Monday that 300 National Guard members are still going on immigration raids and restricting civilian movements in the state. The trial before Breyer will have limited impact on Trump's plan to deploy hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
The nearly 150-year old law that Trump is testing with domestic troop deployment
As President Donald Trump pushes the bounds of military activity on domestic soil, a polarizing debate has emerged over a nearly 150-year old law that regulates when federal troops can intervene in state issues. About 800 National Guard troops filed into Washington, D.C., on Tuesday after President Donald Trump said — without substantiation — that they were needed to reduce crime in the 'lawless' national capital. Thousands of miles away, a judge in California is hearing arguments about whether the president's recent decision to federalize Guard personnel in Los Angeles during protests against immigration raids violated federal law. Trump has also created militarized zones along the U.S.-Mexico border as part of a major shift that has thrust the army into immigration enforcement like never before. The cases in both California and Washington mainly hinge on Posse Comitatus Act, which passed in 1878 and largely prevents the military from enforcing domestic laws. Experts say that in both cases there are clear limitations to the law's enforcement. Here is what to know about the law. Posse Comitatus Act stops military from enforcing US law The Posse Comitatus Act is a criminal statute that prevents the military from enforcing domestic law. It also prevents the military from investigating local crimes, overriding local law enforcement or compelling certain behavior. Posse Comitatus can be bypassed by a congressional vote or in order to defend the Constitution. The Insurrection Act of 1807 can also trigger the suspension of the Posse Comitatus Act and allows the president to deploy the military domestically in cases of invasion or rebellion. There is an exception for the U.S. Coast Guard, which has some law enforcement responsibility. The military is also allowed to share intelligence and certain resources if there is an overlap with civilian law enforcement jurisdiction, according to the Library of Congress. Law was enacted after Reconstruction era The law was enacted in 1878 following the post-Civil War era known as Reconstruction. Pro-segregationist representatives in Congress wanted to keep the military from blocking the enforcement of Jim Crow laws that allowed racial segregation. But the spirit of the law also has roots going all the way back to the Revolutionary War, when the founders of the United States were scarred by the British monarchy's absolute military control, said William C. Banks, a professor at the Syracuse University College of Law. 'We have a tradition in the United States, which is more a norm than a law, that we want law enforcement to be conducted by civilians, not the military,' Banks said. That ethos — ingrained in National Guard personnel starting in basic training — becomes especially powerful in the case of the Posse Comitatus Act, because the law has hardly been tested before now, said Steve Vladeck, a professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center. 'There is no authoritative precedent on exactly where these lines are, and so that's why over the years the military's own interpretation has been so important,' Vladeck said. Law applies to 'federalized' troops The Posse Comitatus Act typically doesn't apply to the National Guard because members of the Guard report to the governor, not the federal government. But when Guard personnel are 'federalized" they are bound by the act until they are returned to state control, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. The state of California said in a federal lawsuit that the Trump administration violated the act when it deployed National Guard soldiers and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles following June protests over immigration raids. The Trump administration has argued that the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply because the president used a provision known as Title 10 to federalize the troops. It allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when the country 'is invaded,' when 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government,' or when the president is otherwise unable 'to execute the laws of the United States.' Attorneys for the federal government also argue that the troops are not enforcing domestic laws and are only acting to protect federal property and agents. In Washington, by contrast, the president is already in charge of the National Guard and can legally deploy troops for 30 days without congressional approval. Vladeck said that both deployments over the past three months suggest that the Trump administration 'appears to be trying to dance around the Posse Comitatus Act" rather than disregard it altogether. "There is a lot in the water about the Trump administration being lawless. What is striking is actually how much the administration is trying to wrap itself in the law,' Vladeck said. Law depends on executive branch policing itself Beyond the legal exceptions written into the law, there is a practical question of how to enforce it, said Joseph Nunn, counsel in the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty and National Security Program. Because the Posse Comitatus Act is a criminal statute, not a civil one, the U.S. Department of Justice is responsible for prosecution in criminal court, Nunn said. 'It's premised on the executive branch policing itself,' he said. That leaves unclear legal standing for whether a state government like California's has a right to sue in civil court in the first place. The ruling in the California case will likely be a narrow interpretation based on the circumstances of the Guard's deployment in Los Angeles, Vladeck said. But he said it could still dictate how the administration uses the Guard in other cities like Chicago and New York, where Trump has threatened to federalize troops next. ___
