• California will allow transgender athletes to compete in girls’ and women’s sports, defying Trump’s executive order aimed at protecting female athletes.
• The California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) says it supports state law AB 1266, permitting participation based on gender identity, not biological sex.
• The NCAA has banned transgender women from women’s collegiate sports, contrasting sharply with California’s stance.
• California’s policy endangers female athletes and violates Title IX protections for women.
• Legal battles are expected as California’s state law clashes with federal directives.

California has announced it will continue allowing transgender athletes to compete in girls’ and women’s sports, directly opposing President Donald Trump’s recent executive order aimed at protecting female athletes.

The California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), the state’s governing body for high school sports, confirmed it will adhere to state law, which permits students to participate in sports based on their gender identity rather than their biological sex. This decision has sparked outrage as California once again prioritizes a radical ideological agenda over the safety and fairness of female athletes.

The NCAA, meanwhile, has taken a different approach, swiftly aligning with Trump’s order by banning transgender women from competing in women’s collegiate sports. The contrast between California’s defiance and the NCAA’s compliance highlights the growing tension between federal directives and state-level policies, particularly in liberal strongholds like California.

California’s controversial stance

California’s refusal to comply with Trump’s executive order is rooted in state law AB 1266, which has been in effect since 2014. The law allows students to participate in sex-segregated sports and use facilities consistent with their gender identity, regardless of their biological sex. The CIF has doubled down on this policy, stating it will continue to provide students with opportunities to compete “in compliance with California law.”

Sophia Lorey, Outreach Director for the California Family Council, expressed her dismay at the state’s decision. “I am disgusted that CIF is disregarding yesterday’s executive order and instead doubling down on policies that are not only unfair but dangerous for young women across California,” Lorey told Fox News Digital.

“By prioritizing their idol of transgender ideology over the safety and rights of female athletes, they are knowingly exposing high school girls to unsafe competition and stripping them of opportunities guaranteed for them under Title IX.”

Lorey’s concerns are echoed by parents and athletes across the state. In Riverside, California, a lawsuit filed by two high school girls alleges that their school district allowed a transgender athlete to take a varsity spot on the girls’ cross-country team, effectively sidelining biological females. The girls claim they were told by school administrators that “transgenders have more rights than cisgender[s]” when they protested the athlete’s participation.

Legal battles on the horizon

The clash between California’s state law and Trump’s executive order is likely to end up in court. Legal experts are divided on whether the federal government can override state policies on this issue. David Cruz, a law professor at the University of Southern California, told The San Francisco Chronicle that he knows of “no legal authority that would let Donald Trump unilaterally forbid transgender girls and women from playing in sex-segregated women’s sports.”

However, others argue that Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in education, could be interpreted to support Trump’s order. Gale Heriot, a law professor at the University of San Diego, noted that allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports could undermine the opportunities guaranteed to female athletes under Title IX.

The issue of transgender athletes in women’s sports has become a flashpoint in the national culture wars. Trump’s executive order, signed on February 5, aims to “uphold the promise of Title IX” by ensuring that women’s sports remain exclusive to biological females. The NCAA’s decision to ban transgender women from women’s collegiate sports further underscores the growing consensus that biological advantages cannot be ignored in the name of inclusivity.

California, however, remains an outlier. The state’s leaders, including Governor Gavin Newsom, have dismissed concerns about fairness and safety, framing the issue as one of civil rights.

California’s defiance of Trump’s executive order is a troubling example of how far the state is willing to go to advance a progressive agenda, even at the expense of female athletes. By allowing biological males to compete in girls’ sports, California is not only undermining the integrity of women’s athletics but also sending a dangerous message that ideology trumps fairness and safety.

Sources for this article include:

FoxNews.com

Reuters.com

SFChronicle.com

FoxNews.com