Colorado could soon become the 28th state to prohibit transgender athletes from playing on school sports teams that match their gender identities as conservative groups push to implement such bans across the United States.
Voters will decide whether to adopt the restriction on youth sports in the state — which is proposed via Proposition 134 — when they cast their ballots for the Nov. 3 election.
The measure, if approved, would reverse Colorado’s stance on one of the major culture wars playing out in American schools — and potentially supersede the state’s anti-discrimination act, which provides protections for transgender people.
Colorado law currently allows transgender athletes to play on teams that match their gender identities, but the Colorado High School Activities Association — which governs high school sports — has agreed not to penalize schools that bar transgender students from joining teams of their choosing.
“There’s quite a bit of concern from the schools about this potential vote,” Denver Public Schools Athletic Director Kevin Bendjy said, noting it raises the specter of needing to perform gender checks. “…This could affect students — all students.”
The placement of Proposition 134 on November’s ballot comes as the Trump administration has sought to roll back transgender rights in education, healthcare and other sectors.
The potential new law would affect both transgender girls and boys who want to play on teams that match their gender identities in both K-12 school districts and higher education. But a majority of the messaging around the issue of transgender athletes in sports has centered on whether transgender girls should be allowed to play on girls teams.
The Trump administration has used Title IX — the historic law passed in 1972 to ensure women and girls can participate in school activities without harassment or discrimination — to argue that schools discriminate against female students by allowing transgender students to play in girls sports or use their facilities.
“Boys and girls are different, and girls deserve their own category,” said Erin Lee, executive director of Protect Kids Colorado, which placed Proposition 134 on the ballot. “…I have only heard from biological females who are being faced with losing a lot.”
National polling shows that a majority of Americans oppose transgender athletes participating in girls sports, giving Proposition 134 supporters an advantage despite Coloradans being more liberal than residents in many other states, pollster Floyd Ciruli said.
“Out of the 10 ballot measures (in this year’s election), it has a strong chance,” he said in an email. “I haven’t seen a state poll, but the national polls show it’s popular. Democratic politicians have a hard time dealing with it.”
Opponents of Proposition 134 argue that the ban would require athletes to prove their gender, negatively affect teens’ mental health and isn’t needed because few transgender students play sports.
“This is being used as a flashpoint to try to rile people up and maintain a sort of political and system of belief that doesn’t exist in Colorado anymore,” said Z Williams, director of the Bread and Roses Legal Center, a grassroots social justice organization in Denver and Colorado Springs.
Colorado could have two competing laws
Since President Donald Trump returned to office last year, his administration has aggressively wielded Title IX to investigate and threaten to pull federal funding from K-12 systems with policies that support transgender students.
The federal government strictly defines gender based on the sex a person was assigned at birth.
Title IX attorneys have said the administration is misapplying the law and that it doesn’t require schools to ban transgender athletes from playing on teams that match their gender identities.
But the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld state laws, including in Idaho and West Virginia, that ban transgender girls from playing on female sports teams.
Two of Colorado’s largest districts — DPS and Jeffco Public Schools — are among those that have gotten caught in the Trump administration’s crosshairs over their policies for transgender students. The two districts’ policies comply with state law — for now.
A ban on which teams transgender athletes can play on would conflict with the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination based on a person’s sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.
Under the act, public K-12 schools and higher education institutions may not exclude students from sports teams based on their gender identity.
Proposition 134 would become a state law if it receives a majority of votes on Nov. 3 — meaning that Colorado would then have two statutes that appear to conflict with each other.
In such a scenario, the courts would have to decide which law supersedes the other, but, typically, the more recently enacted or more specific statute is the one that prevails, said Ashlyn Hare, a Title IX attorney with Hutchinson Black and Cook in Boulder.
In this case, she said, Proposition 134 would likely supersede the state’s anti-discrimination act when it comes to the matter of transgender athletes. But it wouldn’t invalidate the act completely, Hare said.
The possibility of the new law raises many questions for school districts, including what happens to students who are playing winter sports on teams that align with their gender identity, said Bendjy, the DPS athletic director.
Will those students, he asked, have to move to the roster of a different team when the law takes effect? Or will they be unable to play for the rest of the season?
“There’s just lots of questions for us to figure out between Nov. 3 — Election Day — and when this implements on Jan. 1,” he said.
DPS leaders are concerned that if Proposition 134 passes, administrators may find themselves in a situation where they have to question a student’s body or identity, or delve into other personal and medical information to verify that they are allowed to play on a specific team, Bendjy said.
Other opponents also argued that the measure will subject students to questions about their bodies and could spur bullying.
“This would require teams to verify the biology of student athletes,” Williams said. “That means inspecting their bodies. That’s something any child can be subject to if there’s any speculation about gender identity.”
Lee, the executive director of Protect Kids Colorado, called concerns about students having to prove their gender “a ridiculous talking point.”
Schools could use a student’s original birth certificate, a doctor’s note or test a cheek swab t13o confirm their gender, she said.
Read more Today in History: October 23, thousands march in New York City for women’s suffrage
“It eliminates anyone having to question anyone,” Lee said. “It eliminates the need for anyone to be questioning or be skeptical of the girls that are playing.”
Controversey at Dakota Ridge High School
Supporters of Proposition 134 point to a recent controversy at Dakota Ridge High School in Littleton as an example of why the ban on transgender athletes is needed.
Parent Tanna Donalson has accused Dakota Ridge coaches of cutting her daughter Naomi from the school’s volleyball team in favor of a transgender student. Her daughter, a junior, normally plays as a setter, but coaches asked her to switch to a right-side hitter before tryouts, she said.
But Donalson said the school selected a transgender girl to play on the junior varsity team as a setter while Naomi and other juniors were cut entirely.
“She lost out on a really big opportunity, or one of the other girls did,” Donalson said.
“My daughter had been led to believe she had a spot on a team,” Donalson said. “…If this was a fair roster decision, I can accept that my daughter was cut based on skills.”
The parents of the other student, whom The Denver Post is not identifying to protect her privacy, declined to comment.
Jeffco Public Schools spokeswoman Devra Ashby declined to discuss the details of what happened at Dakota Ridge, but said in a statement that the district “support(s) and value(s) all members of our Jeffco community, including our transgender students and staff members.”
“While people may have differing views on Jeffco policies and the laws that inform them, we all share a responsibility to ensure our words and actions reflect care and respect for others,” Ashby added. “We ask everyone in our community to respect individual privacy and remember that real children and families are at the heart of these conversations.”
Donalson said her daughter can still participate in club volleyball, but being cut during her junior year hurts her chances at playing in college. She has filed a complaint against Jeffco Public Schools with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights over the matter.
“The trajectory of my daughter’s life is changed now because this is allowed,” Donalson said when asked why she supports Proposition 134.
Nadine Bridges, executive director of the LGBTQ advocacy group One Colorado, said parents are bullying the Dakota Ridge student who made the volleyball team by questioning her right to play sports.
“When I hear about parents who are speaking out about young people who are playing sports… to put them on blast, to me is where the biggest concern comes in,” she said. “Young people who participate in sports, in competitive sports in particular, are cut from sports teams.”
Bridges said Proposition 134 would hurt female athletes, including students of color, by allowing parents and others to discriminate against them.
“This would give license to any parent who has an assumption that a girl is too tall or too fast or too strong,” Bridges said. “They can just make that claim.”
Supporters of the measure said they didn’t want to prohibit transgender students from playing sports entirely — just from doing so on girls teams. Schools should have separate teams for transgender students, they said.
“They should absolutely play sports,” said Maddie Wilcken, a senior at Thompson Valley High School in Loveland. “Everyone should know that this is not coming from a place of hate and I wish everyone could listen to what is happening. It’s just about fairness and equality and the protection of girls.”
The 17-year-old said she had to compete against a transgender student in wrestling during her freshman year on the team. “I had no idea,” Wilcken said about the match. “…The strength was unmatched. It was over in a flash.”
“It destroys your confidence when girls are put in that situation,” she said.
Potential new law’s impact on students
Supporters and opponents of Proposition 134 agree on one thing: Organized sports can benefit students by teaching them how to build friendships, confidence and learn about time management and more.
But supporters of the measure argue that it’s unsafe for transgender girls to play on female sports teams.
“Biology matters in sports. Males and females are very different,” said Megan Burke, co-founder for Athletes for Action, a group that supports Proposition 134.”…A transgender girl would be a male playing on a girls sports team. The safety part is just an unfair advantage.”
The measures’ opponents argue that if Proposition 134 passes, transgender students would miss out on the learning opportunities organized sports provides.
“There are very real impacts from the political environment that we have,” said Williams, with Bread and Roses. “When trans kids are in affirming and safe spaces… they have much better outcomes through their lives.”
Sports aren’t just about competition, added Jay Mason, who graduated high school in May and lives in Colorado Springs.
Elementary-aged students who want to play sports sometimes just want to be their friends and classmates, he said.
“Most people aren’t thinking about how this affects people kindergarten through college,” the 18-year-old said. “…They’re not looking to like excel and be the best. With these younger students, they just want to have fun and play with their friends.”
Mason played volleyball and gymnastics when he was younger, but stopped after he came out as transgender at the start of high school because he feared he’d become a target.
“The reason why is because I’m afraid of… stuff like this,” Mason said of Proposition 134.
Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.
Read more Gov. Polis declares disaster emergency for southern Colorado flooding
