An editorial from The Federalist.
Should have known. 
Perhaps accurate terminology for it’s own sake would be something to look at, but that’s not the real issue.
Essentially you’re saying that there should be one team reserved exclusively for XX chromosome cisgender people, and one open team.
That simply won’t satisfy anyone.
Do you have a mainstream cite from a mainstream newspaper or legal source? A Federalist op-ed in not a good cite for factual answers.
This was the only cite I found as well, and since no other legal or news sources are claiming this, I think it’s fair to assume that it’s bullshit (not your claim, but the article you’re basing your claim on).
An EO essentially destroying women’s sports would be a bigger deal, generating more than an op-ed from a radically right-wing legal organization.
If it were me, I’d get better news sources that don’t spend their time trying to enrage me.
It should be one team reserved for XX people not on hormone treatment, and one open team. Both could have people of any gender. It won’t satisfy everyone, but nothing will.
Since you’re hijacking your own thread, I’ll direct this question to you:
As you rightly suspected, your cite is long on inflammatory language and short on any kind of evidentiary support that the Executive Order will actually do what the op-ed claims.
It’s okay to be concerned about potential unfairness here, and it’s okay to acknowledge that the issue of sports competition is complicated on a lot of levels and can’t be solved conclusively with a single blithe declaration that anti-trans discrimination is bad.
What’s not okay, as per the Executive Order, is to just declare that transgender girls and women are automatically banned from participating on all girls’ and women’s teams, period.
And what is also super-not-okay is for people like that op-ed author in your cite to use this issue as an opportunity for spiteful misgendering of transgender girls as “boys” and “males”.
Somebody who refuses to refer to transgender women as women, or to transgender girls as girls, is almost certainly using concern-trolling about rights of cisgender women as a figleaf for their anti-trans agenda.
Good golly, who would possibly do such a thing? 
certainly not the authors of the Federalists?
Given the history of the Federalist and their leanings, I’d say someone who cares far more for trampling on the rights of the transgendered than protecting the rights of women.
Agreed, as well as people who really are concerned about the rights of women but were tricked by RW transphobic propaganda.
Exactly right. I didn’t want to call out the OP directly in my first post, but that Federalist article was the only cite I was able to find for the claim as well. And it’s rather clearly using a small to non-existent problem, although one that will take some careful thought and consideration to address in the cases where it is real, to attempt to smear the entire trans-rights movement.
I’m trying to give the OP the benefit of the doubt here, but basing your entire argument on an cite that you admit relies heavily on inflammatory language makes it hard.
Apparently, some asshole at The Federalist named Jordan Davidson, who AFAICT has no credentials in either law, biology, or sports physiology, but knows how to pander to anti-trans prejudice with clickbait hyperbole.
Here is something I said in a recent PM exchange on the topic with another poster on the Dope.
Cite for my point about the Olympics:
Any set of rules that forces cis women to undergo medical procedures in order to compete as women is clearly flawed.
Here’s some of the terms in that ridiculous op-ed. It borders on hate-speech to me:
This pro-transgender policy extends to male athletes who claim their gender identity as a female…
Biden previously promised to pioneer a radical transgender agenda, telling the mother of an 8-year-old, gender-confused child…
The op-ed is uncited bullshit from top to bottom.
Per her Linked in, she joined the Federalist just this past August. September of 2019 to May of 2020, she interned for Congressman Bill Flores (R - TX), one of the wingnuts who contested the election results in TX v. PA.
Modnote: To All: Keep posts about the Biden executive order as it relates to college sports.
The above also appears to be off subject.
No more of this either.
I understand what you’re getting at, but it’s “civil unions” all over again. Transmen right now don’t want to play on a hypothetical open team, they want to plan on the men’s team, because they’re men. If there’s a good reason not to have a men’s team and a women’s team anymore, then make the change for that reason, but tying it to trans rights is problematic.
Oh, I see what you mean, thanks for the follow-up. But I don’t think that genie is going back in the bottle.
As a society, we have begun to recognize that we can no longer just assert “everyone born with a penis is a boy, everyone born with a vagina is a girl, boys play on boys’ teams, girls play on girls’ teams, no exceptions end of story”.
But it’s not clear to me that it’s going to work to just assert instead “everyone plays on the team of the gender they identify as, end of story”.
Definitely, if we have to have one single arbitrary oversimplified rule about gender and sports participation, the latter rule is better than the former, IMO. But ISTM it’s not likely that that’s where we’ll end up.
This change was planned before the election, and there have already been examples of trans students setting new state records in women’s athletics. Some states don’t even require hormone suppression.
It’s a complicated issue which the EO just brushes over in a really simplistic way. I feel like Biden is choosing what looks good over doing the right thing, and girls will be the ones who lose out.
I think most of us would say Biden did choose the right thing.
You have yet to supply a cite that the EO does this at all. Your Federalist op-ed is utterly uncited, and is not even an article. It’s an opinion piece.