COLUMBIA, S.C. — South Carolina lawmakers voted down a bill Tuesday that would have banned transgender women and girls from participating in high school and middle school women’s sports.
Members of the full House Judiciary Committee voted after brief debate to set aside the bill, which was part of a nationwide effort to stop transgender women and girls from participating in women’s sports, claiming that transgender women have a natural athletic advantage over their cisgendered counterparts.
The members took a voice vote on the bill, so individual members did not have to record their vote. But enough Republicans voted against the bill to table it.
The bill failed despite the support of Gov. Henry McMaster.
S.C. Rep. Micah Caskey, R-Lexington, was the sole person to speak on the bill during the meeting Tuesday.
“With all due respect to the proponents of the bill, I understand and am very empathetic to the goal of the bill,” Caskey said. “Where I struggle with this, though, begins in the preamble when we say there are two biological sexes.”
Caskey called that part of the bill “a commentary on gender identity.” He added that it was simply not true. Intersex individuals, about 1-2% of the population, according to Planned Parenthood, are born with sexual characteristics that do not fit binary definitions.
“It’s problematic and inaccurate to begin by saying that,” Caskey said.
Caskey also pointed out that the issue of transgender girls and women trying to compete in women’s sports is exceedingly rare in South Carolina.
Currently, the South Carolina High School League has a process for schools to apply to allow a transgender student to participate in women’s sports. Very few students have applied to play in sports, with only four students going through the process since it was instituted in 2016. Two students, both trans girls, have been granted waivers.
South Carolina LGBTQ advocates celebrated the bill’s demise.
In a statement, S.C. United for Justice and Equality said the group was “relieved to see the House Judiciary Committee do the right thing.”
“This bill – and any other bill that discriminates against transgender people has no place in South Carolina,” the statement read. “Trans youth should be included, affirmed, and be afforded the same opportunities as any other student.”
Ryan Wilson, an associate regional campaign director for the Human Rights Campaign, said the committee “made the right decision today.”
“Transgender kids have played sports consistent with their gender identity for a long time, and trans youth deserve the same chances to participate in athletics,” Wilson said. “They deserve to play sports, to make friends and to learn teamwork as any other youth in South Carolina.”
The bill has been the subject of much opposition since it was introduced.
One of the most prominent opponents of the bill is S.C. Superintendent Molly Spearman, who called it “not something we need to legislate in Columbia.”
“My responsibility as state superintendent is to make sure every child feels protected when they are in school and when they’re on the athletic field,” Spearman said when the bill was in subcommittee. “I believe this bill does damage to that.”
Other opponents say the bill could cause more feelings of distress among trans youth, who already face higher rates of depression and suicidal thoughts, opponents say.
More than 40 medical professionals, including medical doctors and students in South Carolina, signed a letter in opposition to the bill.
“Participation in athletics is a vital part of students’ well-being, including their physical, social, and emotional health; involvement in student sports provides young people with lessons about leadership, self-discipline, success, and failure,” the letter read. “Transgender students, like other students, deserve the same chances to learn teamwork, sportsmanship, leadership and self discipline, and to build a sense of belonging with their peers. When we tell transgender girls that they can’t play girls’ sports — or transgender boys that they can’t play boys’ sports — they miss out, and being excluded can lead to harmful outcomes with regard to social and emotional well being.”
Other critics pointed out that similar legislation has already been blocked in court. Last year, Idaho’s legislation was blocked in court by a federal judge.
“The State has not identified a legitimate interest served by the Act that the preexisting rules in Idaho did not already address, other than an invalid interest of excluding transgender women and girls from women’s sports entirely, regardless of their physiological characteristics,” Judge David Nye wrote in his opinion.
———
