We’ve been warning New Hampshire about the Council on Diversity and Inclusion. One of its first issues was that NH is too white. It then went on to promote SB263, sold as a much-needed add-on to anti-discrimination “protections” in public schools. As in, end gender discrimination against boys who want to compete in girls’ sports?
The language in SB263 is purposefully vague. The idea is to sneak it past everyone by insisting that NH Law leaves kids in our schools subject to discrimination without adequate recourse. But should this become law (aside from the rising legal fees borne by towns and taxpayers for every little indiscretion) gender defined spaces and activities would have to change.
As Cornerstone notes here, Title IX allows for discrimination based on “sex” as long as each “sex” has access to the same “sports opportunities including funding and facilities.” Cornerstone asks what happens when one or more “genders” on the spectrum demand their Title IX rights? Will schools (taxpayers) be forced to provide funding to meet every demand?
Plans Within Plans
I think a more probable outcome is that districts will be forced to integrate biological boys into girls’ sports. My guess is that this bill exists not to blur but erase the line between girls and boys at the state level. They will then at some point add provisions to restrict funding for schools that are reluctant to comply from the state level.
Given that the Democrats are all-in on changing how schools get funded – through Concord instead of by towns at the local level – this makes sense to me.
They convince the towns to give their power and control to the State (by lying about property taxes and their intentions) which will then (inevitably) tie dozens of funding triggers to top-down compliance. First in Public School. Then everywhere else as that (also inevitably) tax rises in size and scope.
If they don’t get their new school funding income tax this session or next (they’ll never stop trying), they still get their gender blender inclusive “excellence” which could mean the end of biological girls winning at “girls sports” in the Granite State.
When advocates insist otherwise ask them to explain how the language in the bill would protect girls athletics from being overrun by biological boys?
Note: The original post title wrongly attributed the bill name as HB263