Idaho Is The 1st State To Stop Men From Competing In Women Athletics- Women athletics are threatened from transgender men wanting to compete against them, and Idaho is now the first state to stop this! Tune in to hear more!

Air Date: 06/08/2020

Guest: Representative Barbara Ehardt

On-air Personalities: David Barton, Rick Green, and Tim Barton

Listen:

Download: Click Here

Transcription note:  As a courtesy for our listeners’ enjoyment, we are providing a transcription of this podcast. Transcription will be released shortly. However, as this is transcribed from a live talk show, words and sentence structure were not altered to fit grammatical, written norms in order to preserve the integrity of the actual dialogue between the speakers. Additionally, names may be misspelled or we might use an asterisk to indicate a missing word because of the difficulty in understanding the speaker at times. We apologize in advance.

 

Rick:

Welcome to the intersection of faith and the culture. This is WallBuilders Live, where we’re talking about today’s hottest topics on policy and faith and the culture, always from a biblical, historical and constitutional perspective, even when it’s those hot topics, you can still learn the most from what the Bible says in terms of how we should approach that issue, what history can teach us on that issue and then of course, making sure we’re saying constitutional here in our constitutional republic.

And speaking of that constitutional republic, definitely, under attack in so many different ways. The COVID crackdowns from governors to the riots, there’s just so much unrest right now. And so, it’s very important that we have that biblical perspective on every issue that we’re studying of the day. Not really going to be our topic today. But if you would like to dive further into that issue, please visit our website at wallbuilderslive.com. You can check out some of our programs from last week.

And then also, I want to encourage you, I had a great live Facebook discussion with a group of friends: red, white, yellow, black and brown, we had everybody there. And we just discussed this issue and asked tough questions and had real candid, honest, transparent conversation. So that is on my Facebook page right now. If you want to visit that you can just go to facebook.com/PatriotRickGreen. So, it’s facebook.com/PatriotRickGreen.

And I am Rick green, I’m a former Texas legislator and America’s Constitution coach. We’re here with David Barton, America’s premier historian and our founder at WallBuilders. And Tim Barton, national speaker and pastor and president of WallBuilders. We very much believe and looking at truth, get back to the truth. You got to base your policy on truth, in fact, the Declaration starts off that way. We hold these truths, when it’s actually the second paragraph. But the part that starts describing who we are, starts off with “We hold these truths to be self-evident”. Without truth, you don’t get to those inalienable rights, you don’t get to life liberty and pursuit of happiness, you don’t get to a government that only has just powers. You got to have truth. And so here on WallBuilders Live, we’re constantly looking for that truth, searching for that truth and finding it in the Bible, in the constitution and in our history.

Alright, David, Tim, later in the program, we’ve actually got a State rep with us from Idaho and she has passed legislation, they’re dealing with the whole athletics program and guys coming over into girl’s athletics and competing. This is a bigger issue than just Idaho, obviously been happening around the country. Connecticut and some other places have really garnered headlines. And it all comes down to this transgender issue. Can a guy that says he’s now a girl or feels like he’s a girl go over and compete against the girls? And should we allow for that or should we stop that?

David:

Well, actually, it’s a bigger issue than just allowing guys who identifies a girl to compete. It goes to a 50 year old, nearly 50 year old, 48 year old federal law that was seen as really a seismic shift in the nation. If you go back into the 1960s, the civil rights movement 1950s with Dr. Martin Luther King in 60s with Dr. King cetera, a big law they got passed in 64, signed by LBJ. It was a law that had been drafted Initially by President Eisenhower and Democrats in the senate killed the law was a Civil Rights Act. And it was designed to do what the 14th Amendment had tried to do back in 1868. But southern States particularly said, well, you may say that blacks are free, but we’re not going to give them the same rights and they’re going to have separate education and they don’t get the right to keep and bear arms in our southern States. And so, there was just a ton of discrimination. And so that really was largely solved with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Tim:

And let me just point out that where we are today, it seems so weird to think about there was a time in America when that kind of discrimination was happening. When you know, we look at American history, certainly when you think back to the era of the Civil War, yeah, you can see some things and you can imagine that okay, there were some great tensions, north, south sentiments, slavery, value of individuals. But coming forward, like you feel like you’ve resolved some of that.

And it’s just weird to think about that even in more recent decades, that some of those issues were still a problem. But as you pointed out, there was legislation that were passed, there was a lot of really good people involved and engaged in that fight, trying to help equality be more realized for all Americans, much more similar to where we are today, where America, you arguably have better equality, opportunity, freedoms, prosperity, right, than anywhere else in the world. So, we’ve come so far. It’s just for me, even though I study history, it’s just so weird to think about, since I know where we are today that just a few decades ago, we were having to fight positions that seemed that ludicrous.

David:

Yeah, it seems ludicrous today, you’re exactly right. But that 64 law was really a seismic shift. And that’s what really helped equality take massive steps forward. Well, right after that, in 1972, they said, you know what, there’s also a real problem here with women to be able to take steps forward.

So, in 1972, they passed Title Nine, which was an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They said not only can you not discriminate on the basis race, you can’t discriminate on the basis of sex. Here’s the deal. How do you define sex today as opposed to then? Because sex today now means gender and gender means whatever you want it to mean? Well, sex as defined in 1972 was male and female and that’s what really opened up female sports was that amendment in 1972.

Tim:

And by saying sex, really talking about the biological makeup of the individual, right? So, you have the X and the Y chromosome and this is where biologically, you can distinguish male and female. And there’s really not that much confusion, because in biology, you have these chromosomes and that’s where you have two sexes. And you can argue now with all the different hundreds of gender identities, I’m saying hundreds as an exaggeration…

David:

Well, it’s however many, you define yourself. It could be 100.

Tim:

Right. And that’s the point is that there is no set number, because whatever you think or feel or however you want to identify your now and culture allowed to identify that way, but it does not change the biological makeup of what is in your DNA. And this is where back up several decades, this was Title Nine was recognizing that there are two different, back then, we would have said genders, right, but there are two different sexes.

And that even though they are equal in value, they’re not totally equal in structure and makeup. Because the biological male is generally going to be larger, he’s going to have bigger bone structure, more muscle mass. We recognize that even though equal in value, we’re generally different in body type and style. And this was just a DNA or I guess, a recognition of what DNA further help reveal even when the X and Y chromosome. Something that really again, looking back should have been that complicated. There should have been almost a self-evident truth as the Founding Fathers would have clarified it, but it’s something that finally was codified several decades ago.

David:

And it’s really what opened up women’s sports. But now the redefinition of sex to be gender of any type is threatening women’s sports. Because instead of having women’s sports and men sports, men are now competing over in women’s sports by saying I’m identify as a woman. So, the whole intent of Title Nine is going out the door with modern interpretation.

There’s actually the case that the US Supreme Court that is asking the simple question. Can you redefine the meaning of law based on what it currently means? No. Under originalism, you take what it would meant at the time and you apply it the way it was meant. If you don’t like that, you come back and pass another law to reclassify however you want it to be today. But under Title Nine, it says two genders, two sexes is what it said, but you had male and female.

And so, under the original intent of that law, do we get to throw that out because certain people today, a certain group of people want to redefine it? That’s what the Supreme Court will decide at some point, probably in this term that they’ve taken the case. Hopefully, they’ll deliver the opinion in this term. But that’s what a legislator in Idaho did.

Legislator, part of the profamily legislative network said, hey, we need to be able to distinguish men’s sports and women’s sports. And she’s a great coach. She was a great D-1 athlete. And so, she got this bill passed as the first in the nation that goes back to trying to uphold the intent of the 1972 law.

Rick:

Barbara Ehardt, State representative from Idaho, she’ll be with us when we return. Stay with us right here on WallBuilders Live.

BREAK

Have you ever wanted to learn more about the United States Constitution, but just felt like, man, the classes are boring or it’s just that old language from 200 years ago or I don’t know where to start? People want to know but it gets frustrating because you don’t know where to look for truth about the Constitution either.

Well, we’ve got a special program for you available now called Constitution Alive with David Barton and Rick Green. And it’s actually a teaching done on the Constitution at Independence Hall in the very room where the Constitution was framed. We take you both to Philadelphia, the cradle of liberty and Independence Hall and to the WallBuilders library, where David Barton brings the history to life to teach the original intent of our founding fathers.

We call it the Quickstart Guide to the Constitution because in just a few hours through these videos, you will learn the citizens guide to America’s Constitution, you’ll learn what you need to do to help save our constitutional republic. It’s fun, it’s entertaining and it’s going to inspire you to do your part to preserve freedom for future generations. It’s called Constitution Alive with David Barton and Rick Green. You can find out more information on our website now at wallbuilders.com.

Rick:

Welcome back to WallBuilders Live. Thanks for staying with us today. We have with us a State representative from Idaho. Barbara Ehardt. Thank you so much Representative for your time today.

Barbara:

Oh, I’m thrilled to be on. Thank you for having me. I appreciate it.

Rick:

Well, you guys in Idaho have managed to accomplish something that’s been attempted across the country. But as far as I know, it’s the first time to actually have some legislation protecting girls and women from having men come over to their athletic program and compete against them, sometimes just claiming to be transgender, sometimes they are actually on the drugs and doing surgeries and different things. But a lot of us have been scratching our heads going, okay, wait, why is this okay to allow guys to go over and compete against the gals and take their trophies? You guys said enough is enough and pass legislation in Idaho to prevent it.

Barbara:

And that’s correct. As a matter of fact, you know, to me, this bill doesn’t care how you identify. You can continue to identify or feel however you want, that’s really acceptable. This is all about one’s biological sex. And having myself been a former division one women’s basketball player and I also spent 15 years coaching division one women’s basketball at four fantastic institutions, I know firsthand that there is a huge difference, regardless of any hormone usage between girls and boys, men and women. And so, with this bill is very important, it’s very personal to me. I actually one that absolutely 100% benefited from Title Nine when it was passed and I was just a kid back in 1972. I had no idea how much Title Nine would change my life. And so, with that background that I had and I think the credibility that I brought to this legislation and the knowledge, that helped get it to where it needed to go. And yes, it’s the first in the nation and I’m completely convinced it will not be the last.

Rick:

Well, I hope you’re right. You know, and I can’t remember any of the names or even the name of the school, but a couple of years ago, I remember just watching a news clip and a guy that was claiming to be a woman and literally, like, it looked like he was a foot, at least a foot taller than all of the ladies on the court. And, and obviously, a man’s build and to me, it was just ridiculous and it seems so unfair.

And I remember even the interview with some of the gals, actually saying, you know, we’re afraid to say this isn’t okay. And so, there was really kind of this chilling effect of you couldn’t speak out as a girl and say, this isn’t right, that these guys are coming and literally taking the stage. I mean, and typically, was guys that couldn’t compete with the other guys, right? They were losing the races of the guys that were in track and they couldn’t make the team on the basketball. And it just seems so unfair. But…

Barbara:

I don’t even know if that’s the case. Like, I know that some of the other side has also tried to make some of the American about that. You know, actually, to be honest, at the University of Montana, there was a guy running on the men’s cross country team, he decided that he wanted to run on the women’s, so we waited a year, this past year and he had actually done well collegially on the men’s team and now is running for the University of Montana and competing against our women here in Idaho. As a matter of fact, you probably have seen the lawsuit as an intervention lawsuit just filed by Alliance Defending Freedom. And two of the people whom they’ll represent are two of the athletes from Idaho State, my alma mater.

And so, rather a person who’s successful, competing in their biological sex or not, really, to me is not the point of the bill. It is that the sports codified in 1972 with Title Nine is about sex. There are two sexes and everyone else can feel how you want, but we have the male division and the women’s division. And actually, even according to the Title Nine, there’s certainly room for co-ed. But that’s not what’s happening here.

And so, when you have boys and men coming over and taking the spots of girls and women and it’s a complete game changer and it’s not right. And we know that girls and women are afraid to speak up, because we’ve seen what happens. You know, I’ve now spoken with, some of them from Connecticut, Chelsea Mitchell and her mother Christie, and you look at Selena and Ilana and what they’re, you know, has had to go through and yet there’s been incredible support. Because this legislation makes common sense, not just in Idaho, but through throughout the nation. It is actually something on which Democrats and Republicans can agree until it becomes legislation, then it seems to get politicized. And that’s really quite important.

Rick:

Now, will this affect just high school or does it affect college as well?

Barbara:

In Idaho, as I wrote the bill and, of course, had helped us. In going forward, is absolutely is about high school and college, so, it will affect our higher education here in Idaho. And that is why I’m pleased to see the intervention lawsuit just filed by Alliance Defending Freedom and representing two of the gals at Idaho State who were beaten and I’m watching the tape, you know, they’re get beaten badly by the runner from the University of Montana.

Rick:

First on the high school level, this is vitally important as you said, you live through yourself: is that I mean, a lot of people get to go to college because of athletics and because of those scholarships. And so for a lot of these young ladies, when they’re beat out by some guy that came over to compete in the women’s sports, they could literally lose their opportunity to go to college. It’s not just about a trophy.

Barbara:

Oh, absolutely. And that’s the case. That’s one of the main arguments with what we’re seeing in Connecticut. And when you speak with Chelsea Mitchell, she is the fastest female in Connecticut and she has in high school. She is a senior this year. She has lost out on four state championships, having been beaten by two biological males and yet she’s the fastest girl. And so yes, it affects everything: championships, honor and the ability to be recognized and go on and compete for athletic scholarships. Absolutely.

Rick:

So, the bill basically says, whatever your biological sex is, that’s the athletic event you have to compete in?

Barbara:

That is correct. And that’s why it would be an incorrect and false narrative to argue that it has anything to do with feelings or gender, because you can continue to feel however you want and it does not prevent anyone, however, they may identify from competing. They can compete and that’s one of the messages we want to make sure we get out there. They absolutely can compete, but you have to compete with your biological sex or on a co-ed team. That’s what you’d have to do. So, it just clearly defines where everyone gets to play.

And it’s important, because first off, it’s a false narrative also to suggest that taking hormones is going to somehow change the advantages that having testosterone and it is the X, Y chromosomes that are inherent in every single cell of the body, that somehow that alone is going to change things. But let’s not forget that males have a larger stature, larger heart, larger lungs, larger and denser bones. I mean, the list goes on and on. So, these are false narratives just somehow think that hormone therapy is going to change the natural abilities and advantages that men have.

Rick:

Meaning that some people have made the argument that if a guy feels like a girl and takes the hormone therapy, that it will reduce his ability to compete as a guy and therefore he needs to be over in the girls’ competition? Yeah, I think that makes total sense. You know, to me, it doesn’t seem any different than like you’re saying, you’re not saying you can’t compete; you compete in your class, in your group. If you’re a wrestler and you weigh 190, we don’t let you go compete with the 150. Guys. I mean, it’s the same thing, right? You’re just saying this…

Barbara:

That’s a point. Yeah. That’s the point that I made during the hearings and on the floor during the presentation, that we have all sorts of required and one of them of course, is sex. But wait, that is the exact point. Of course, I said 115 versus 165. But we have that, we have age requirements, physicals. We have eligibility requirements for boundaries, for GPAs, including in concussion eligibility and protocols.

There are all sorts of protocols that we have and this is one that up until recently, we didn’t think we’d have to define that in order to compete on the girls or women’s side, you actually have to be a biological female with XX chromosomes. So, you know, it’s kind of sad that we have to lay this out, because inherently we understand. But yes, with what’s happened, just not just with Connecticut, but certainly, throughout the nation, because it’s happening more and more and obviously, internationally. And so yes, we are, Idaho is the first State to define this. And again, I do not believe that we’re going to be the last.

Rick:

Yeah, I think you’re right. And so, on the college level, so if you have this as an Idaho State law, and so for students attending those universities in Idaho, this would apply? So, what do you do and that may be what the ADF suit is all about? Whenever a college in Idaho has to compete in their district or their division with someone from another State that doesn’t have this limitation, how does that work?

Barbara:

Yes, let me explain that because and I have to explain it obviously, during the hearing and on the floor, but it really is quite, quite simple. Because people misconstrue what’s out there, thinking that somehow this prohibits the NCAA. No, the NCAA policy is a permissive policy. And so, what that means is, if it wasn’t the permissive policy, we would have schools won’t be able to compete collegiately such as BYU and Liberty and other smaller colleges that are division one. But the NCAA policy basically says that if a school decides to carry a biological male on their female team, then, and I guess they do call it a transgender policy. Then this is the process by which that school must go through in order for that athlete to compete. So, it’s a permissive policy. It is not required, it allows for it.

And because it allows for it, what this bill, what this legislation is saying here in Idaho, is that as a member of one of Idaho’s teams, that higher education that offers collegiate opportunities in Idaho, you have to be a biological female. Now, that our policy does not affect Montana’s policy. So, when we go to Montana or better yet, when Montana comes here, and I stated this on the floor, when the University of Montana comes in their country to compete in Pocatello, Idaho at Idaho State or at Boise State, they will be able to bring on their women’s side the biological male and he will be able to compete against our women and he will win. And that’s just how it’s going to have to be. But we, our teams will not be able to go recruit a biological male to play against him. Our teams will be filled with biological females.

Rick:

And like you said, hopefully, this legislation catches on in other states and they see the fairness of this and the importance of that. And just the plain common sense. I mean, it’s like you said before, it’s amazing that we’re having to even have this conversation, that you’re having to pass legislation on it. But I’m so glad that you did and we celebrate with you in the in the victory for women’s sports in this. And I hope it happens in Connecticut and in other States across the country. Thanks for leading the way on this and thanks for taking the time to give us an update on it.

Barbara:

Absolutely. Thank you for having me on. And, you know, I’m a big fan of David Barton. And he actually had an initial part in this, so we appreciate all that you guys do. Thanks so much.

Rick:

Absolutely. Thanks so much for serving and appreciate your time today on the program. That’s representative Barbara Ehardt in Idaho. And you know, folks out there, you can take action on this. You can take her bill and take it to your legislator and say, hey, we need to do this in Texas or in Arkansas or whatever State you’re in and let’s get this thing passed all across the country so that the universities aren’t at a disadvantage when they do the right thing. If another State is unwilling to do the right thing, let’s make sure we get this done all across the country.

We’re back now with David and Tim. And guys, this is I mean, I’m sure she’s getting a lot of hate mail for taking on this fight. Because it’s one of those issues where if you stand for science, you’re going to get lambasted on these things. But it’s great that this got passed on Idaho. Now we need to get a pass in other States so that the athletes in Idaho especially their colleges aren’t at a disadvantage to some of these other colleges and other states.

David:

Well, you know, she really is the right one to have done this. Because as a D-1 athlete and as a D-1 coach in a number of schools, she was coaching and playing at a time when Title Nine made a huge difference her ability to play and become a coach everything else. I mean, this is something that that she lived through and she saw the results up. And I love the point she made is how come we can have age requirements and weight and other requirements, but we can’t have one on gender? I mean…

Tim:

Or in this case sex. Right? Biology

David:

That’s right biology. And so, you know, those are great points. But you’re right, Rick, this needs to be passed in a number of other states for sure.

Tim:

Well, and I appreciate to as she’s saying that this is what we’re going to do in our State, but other States get to make their decisions that she is still recognizing federalism and the sovereignty on some level of the States that every State gets to make a decision. Now, you would hope that States made good decisions and in this case, what would seemingly be a common sense decision. But I appreciated that in her kind of common sense logical approach, she said, look, we can only control where we are, we can only make a difference where we are, but here in our State, in Idaho, we’re going to do what we believe to be the right thing, what makes the most sense, what protects women. And right when we’re not saying that people that might identify as a woman that are not biological women that they can’t play sports, they just shouldn’t play sports and exclusively biological women’s sport. I mean, things again, it makes total sense.

But I just I appreciate in her explanation not only the common sense, but also the recognition of the sovereignty of States which federalism has been lost in so many areas, that she’s not advocating that this needs to be a federal deal that’s imposed on everybody, although I’m not sure it’d be totally against that on some level, but as a State legislator, that she’s just protecting her state, which is what she’s elected to do.

David:

Well, I thought it’s also neat, is kind of almost a golden rule approach. She said, look, this doesn’t control Montana. If they have a male that identifies as female, they’ll come in and crush our female athletes in Idaho. But we don’t want to do that to them. We don’t want to take someone from Idaho, who is a male who claims to be a female and go crush their female athletes. I thought, you know, that’s really good. She recognizes that Montana might crush them because they don’t have this kind of a law, but she didn’t want to be the one to crush the females in other States. I thought that that really is a good kind of wholesome attitude of the golden rule: you want to treat others the way you want to be treated. So, on so many levels, it’s got such good motives behind it, I think, but it is the first in the nation kind of law. But hopefully, there’ll be many others that come after.

Rick:

Yeah, you lead the way by doing the right thing. Right. And that’s the example that she’s setting and State of Idaho is going to set on this and hopefully, we get other States to follow suit and pass the exact same law in other States as well. We are out of time for today, folks, you’ve been listening to WallBuilders Live. You can get more WallBuilders Live on our website, wallbuilderslive.com, has got archives from the last few weeks. We encourage you to dive into some of that information, get that biblical, historical and constitutional perspective.

And you know, if you can help, I’m telling you there’s no more and in my lifetime anyway, there has been no more an important time for the message that WallBuilders has, there’s truth when we look into history to actually learn from history, to get a biblical worldview perspective on the issues of our day, no more important time than right now. And we need your help to get that message out there to save our constitutional republic.

You can do that at our website wallbuilderslive.com, very easy. Make a contribution right there, invest in freedom, come alongside us. I know many of you are asking what can I do, I see these challenges in our culture, but I just don’t know what to do? There’s a lot of action steps we talked about here on the program. But the one thing I can tell you to do right now is invest your dollars into freedom and you do that by giving to WallBuilders Live. When you do that, it amplifies our voice, you become a force multiplier. We reach more people across the country with these truths, and that voice is so desperately needed. Thanks for being a part of it. Thanks for listening to WallBuilders Live.