January 16, 2025 • 40 mins
Award winning journalist, producer and author Katie Barnes joins Sarah to explain the “Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act” bill that the House passed earlier this week. They discuss who and what could be affected if the Senate passes the bill, potential unintended consequences, and what is and isn’t made clear in the language of the bill. Plus, another un-retirement, PVF players hit the court tonight, and some extremely gay math.
-
Get Katie’s book, “Fair Play: How Sports Shape the Gender Debates” here
-
Find the PVF schedule here
-
Check Frankie de la Cretaz’s insight on queer players competing in Unrivaled here
-
Leave us a voicemail at 872-204-5070 or send us a note at goodgame@wondermedianetwork.com
-
Follow Sarah on social! Bluesky: @sarahspain.bsky.social Instagram: @Spain2323
-
Follow producer Misha Jones! Bluesky: @mishthejrnalist.bsky.social Instagram: @mishthejrnalist TikTok: @mishthejrnalist
-
Follow producer Alex Azzi! Bluesky: @byalexazzi.bsky.social
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to Good Game with Sarah Spain, where we're writing
letters to our representatives telling them all the ways they
actually can support girls and women in sports. It's Thursday,
January sixteenth that on today's show, we'll be talking to
ESPN feature writer Katie Barnes about the news that House
Republicans have passed a bill barring trans athletes from women's sports. Plus,
it pays to be a Husky its core season in
(00:22):
the w and we offer up a little bookstore redecorating advice.
It's all coming up right after this welcome back slices.
Here's what you need to know today. The US House
of Representatives on Tuesday passed a bill that would prohibit
(00:44):
transgender girls and women from competing on school athletic teams
that are designated for female students.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
If the Senate approves the.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
Bill and it goes on to become law, schools that
allow trans girls or women to compete could lose federal funding.
We're going to dive deep into this news with today's
guest Katie Barnes later in the show. College Hoops News,
the Yukon Huskies are the first public women's college program
to report more than three million dollars in annual ticket sales.
That number three point twenty five million, to be exact,
(01:11):
was disclosed on Wednesday as part of the school's most
recent NCAA financial reporting. Per Sportico, Yukon women's basketball generated
more revenue than that reported by seventy five public men's
teams the prior year. We'll link to the full Sportico
report in our show Notes to Soccer.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Former captain of.
Speaker 1 (01:27):
The Kansas City Current Desire Scott is coming out of
her a very brief retirement to join the Ottawa Rapid,
one of the inaugural six clubs in the Northern Super League,
Canada's new pro soccer league. Scott is a four time
Olympian for the Canadian national team, winning Golden Tokyo and
bronze medals at the twenty twelve London and twenty sixteen
Rio Games. All six NSL rosters are starting to fill out.
(01:49):
Among the highlights, longtime Canadian goalie Aaron McLeod has signed
with the Halifax Tides, and American Nikki Stanton, who most
recently played for the NWSL Seattle Rain, has signed to
Vancouver Rise FC. Inaugural NSL season gets underway, in April
to the WNBA. The Seattle Storm have cored Gabby Williams,
who played twelve games for the franchise after helping lead
(02:09):
France to a silver medal at last year's Paras Olympics.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
The court designation.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Means that teams gain the exclusive negotiating rights for players
who are otherwise set to become free agents. In other words,
Williams isn't guaranteed to stay with the Storm, but at
the very least she'll be offered a one year super
max contract, currently worth two hundred and forty nine thou
two hundred and forty four bucks. Each WNBA team has
until January twentieth to extend core designations. Other players who
(02:34):
have already received offers include Las Vegas Kelsey Plum, New
York's Brianna Stewart, and Dallas's Sattuo Sabily, though Sably is
expected to negotiate a trade to another team after announcing
at Unrivaled Pressers she's played her last.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
Game for Dallas.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
To tennis and the Australian Open, Naomi Osaka is into
the third round after defeating world number twenty Carolina Mouhova
in marks Osaka's first time advancing to the third round
of any Grant's line in three years. Osaka, a two
time Australian Open champ, will face Belinda Bencicic. While Osaka's
been successful on the court, it's been a very chaotic
couple of weeks for the twenty seven year old off it.
(03:10):
Last week, she announced that her relationship with longtime partner
Rapper Corde had ended. They started dating in twenty nineteen
and share a daughter, Shi, who.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Is one and a half.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
Osaka also told reporters in Melbourne that the Los Angeles
wildfires made it within three blocks of her home, causing
her to ask someone back home to retrieve her daughter's
birth certificate in case the house was lost in the wildfires.
To pro volleyball, love isn't the only game in town.
The Pro Volleyball Federation just started its second season with
eight teams around the country, and last week the Omaha
(03:41):
Supernovas reset the US pro Volleyball attendance record when thirteen thousy,
four hundred and eighty six people crammed into the Chi
Health Center in downtown Omaha to see the team win
a five set thriller over the Atlanta Vibe. There are
six PVF teams in action tonight, beginning with the Indie
Ignite taken on Grand Rapids and the Columbus Fury at
(04:01):
the Atlanta Vibe, both at seven pm Eastern. Will link
to the full game schedule and tune in info in
our show notes.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
We got to take a quick break. When we come back.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
Everything you need to know about the very inaccurately named
Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act with Katie.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
Barnes joining us now.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
They're an award winning journalists, producer, and author covering the
intersection of sports and gender. Their work has appeared across
multiple ESPN platforms, including ESPN dot Com, Sports Center, Outside
the Lines, and the ESPN Daily Podcast.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
They're a three time GLAD nominee, and we're.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
Named the twenty seventeen Journalist of the Year by the
Association of LGBTQ Journalists. Their book Fair Play, How Sports
Shape the Gender Debates was on Time Magazine's list of
one hundred must read books of twenty twenty three. They
love Bourbon and Disneyland, and they've been to the best
women's sports bar in Chicago more times than I have.
I'm working on it, Katie Barnes what's up, Katie?
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Yo? What's up?
Speaker 3 (05:02):
What an intro? I feel so cool? Thank you?
Speaker 2 (05:05):
Well, I mean you are cool. Fun fact.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Once for a gift, I asked for two books, both
of them named fair Play. I'm sure you recognize that
there's another book also named fair Play that sometimes people
mistake for yours.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Both fantastic books. I got them both for the same birthday.
Speaker 3 (05:19):
I first of all love it. Second of all, yes,
I do know that.
Speaker 4 (05:21):
They're about wildly different things. Yeah, both about gender. So
that's kind of interesting and both fascinating. Thanks for making
time for us last minute.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
You are here today to help us make sense of
the we believe very poorly named Protection of Women and
Girls in Sports Act bill that the House just voted
to pass on Tuesday. So can you sort of break
down what the bill intends to do?
Speaker 4 (05:44):
Yeah, So, what the bill does is it builds on
legislation that has passed across the country that bars trench
into girls and women from participating in girls and women's
sports at the school in collegiate levels. What is different, however,
about the piece of legislation is actually a men's Title
nine to define sex as being determined by a reproductive
(06:06):
biology and genetics at birth direct quote, and then ties
federal funding to the issue of a transgender girls and
women participating girls women's sports by basically saying that you'd
be out of compliance with Title nine if any school
enacted such a policy. So it is incredibly broad in
terms of how far it reaches, but it's also very
(06:27):
specific in that it is at the school level because
it's about federal funding and Title nine and not about
how a state is defining sex or about who's eligible
for school sports. It's different and interesting in that regard
from a policy perspective.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
And it doesn't seek different policies for those levels of education. Right,
So the same policy would apply to a third grader
as a collegiate athlete.
Speaker 4 (06:54):
Yeah, I think there's some question about that, but as
it's written, that is certainly what it looks like, in
that there is no differentiation in the text or any
enumeration of how this would be applied across different school categories.
It basically says federal funding for institutions that you receive it,
which is pretty much every school in the country, and
(07:17):
as we know, Title nine, although we often talk about
it in a collegiate sense and in a women's sports sense.
Title nine applied, it's an equal access education law, so
it applies to any school receiving federal funding, which includes
private schools.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
It includes elementary schools, middle schools.
Speaker 4 (07:36):
And because there is no differentiation at this point as
it's written, that is certainly the interpretation that a lot
of people have of it.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
Yeah, the amendment to the federal law, the Title nine law,
is an interesting one because, as to your point, it
requires that sex will be recognized solely on a person's
reproductive biology and genetics at birth for determining compliance. Those
who are in support of this bill, many of whom
seem to believe that that is the only way to
(08:05):
acknowledge gender, then don't really believe it to be an amendment.
They believe it to be a reinforcement of Title nine,
because their insistence is that the only gender is that
associated with your reproductive biology, whereas Title nine, without saying
so much, has sort of thus far allowed for gender
identity to dictate in many ways.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
Your participation is that accurate?
Speaker 4 (08:30):
Yeah, I mean, I think in general, the core of
the legal dispute around transgender students and transgender athletes participating
in school sports is about how Title nine should be applied.
And also, you know, litigating existing case law about sex
based discrimination. So you have folks who are arguing in
(08:52):
favor of inclusive policy in schools and inclusive policy for
transgender student athletes at.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
The school sports level.
Speaker 4 (09:00):
Mostly you know, looking at this case law that has
been built that goes from this case. It's like Price
Waterhouse be Hopkins from nineteen eighty nine up to Bosstoc,
which is a Title seven ruling about employment discrimination just
from a few years ago, and building their case on
how sex based discrimination applies to sex stereotypes and therefore
(09:21):
would apply to gender identity, et cetera.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
Like, it's a very clear line of thinking in that regard.
Speaker 4 (09:26):
And for those who are in favor of restrictive policy
for transgender students and athletes, they argue that Title nine
does not need any additional discussion, right, Like it says
on the basis.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
Of sex is fixed and immutable.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
The end is what as opposed to gender right, right,
And so the interpretation of these words is core to
all of the legal proceedings that are happening across the
country in terms of challenging the already existing legislation at
the state level as well as you know, the few
Title nine cases specifically that have been litigated as they
(10:02):
pertain to transgender students and schools as well as transgender athletes.
In my brain, I'm doing this calculation of, Oh, it
feels like it would it would be more jarring to
convince people to change existing Title nine law. So in
order to soften that blow, you say you're not actually
changing anything. It's very explicit in what it says about sex.
On the other hand, our government and the people in
(10:26):
charge are rapidly changing, and I wonder if there is
much pushback to the idea of changing Title nine, or
if a lot of the people in Congress and the
Senate actually believe that Title nine is a law whose
strength should be weakened, is a law whose enforcement should
continue to be not properly enforced. Because we saw with
(10:48):
like Betsy de Vas and some others in the previous
Trump administration, there was certainly what felt like a desire.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
To take some of the teeth out of Title nine.
Speaker 4 (10:57):
Well, it's interesting in terms of, you know, taking some
the teeth out of Title nine. It's actually in fascinating
to me because you know, under the first Trump administration,
you know, Betsy Devas in the later years and the
Department of Education, you know, really weabinized Title nine specifically
against transgender athletes and policy as it pertains to transgender
athletes holding up funding in the state of Connecticut for
(11:19):
a couple, like for a completely non related magnet program
in New Haven. Eventually that funding was granted, but that
did happen, and it was specifically about transgender inclusive policy
in the state, as well as forcing Franklin Pierce University
to change its policy that allowed for cc Telford to
(11:40):
compete on its team and then win a national championship
in twenty nineteen in Division two hurdles and on this category.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
Yeah, I think I'm thinking of Betsy Devas trying to
use Title nine in issues of sexual assault.
Speaker 4 (11:54):
Yes, right, so there was like a role back there
and then a weaponization in other spaces.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Interesting.
Speaker 4 (11:59):
But I think what's fascinating about some of this conversation
is that for a lot of the general public, transgender
athletes as an idea and as an issue really came
to the public consciousness around like really with Leah Thomas.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
In twenty twenty one and twenty twenty two.
Speaker 4 (12:16):
But this topic had been a legal football for years
before that, going back to the Obama administration sending out,
you know, basically formal guidance around how to treat transgender
students in schools in twenty sixteen and saying that transgender
youth should be affirmed in this in these ways, and
(12:37):
twenty three states sued the Obama administration over the implementation
of that guidance and it never went into full effect.
And then you have the first Trump administration comes in.
One of the first things they do is rescind that
guidance and so like, this is something that has been
part of a back and forth for years pre dating
I think with the public really began to become aware
(12:58):
of it.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
One of the things that I'm curious about, if the
desire is to make all participation coincide with reproductive biology
and genetics at birth, there are a lot of politicians
who are all too eager to conflate transgender athletes and
athletes with DSDs so differences in sex development, and also
(13:20):
even cisgender women who maybe just present as more masks
or are physically strong or tall or bigger, all those
things that we hear about the worst case scenarios where
parents are yelling at athletes on the field that's a
boy without any proof, without any reason other than this
now desire to sort of take all of the anti
trans rhetoric and apply it in other.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
Spaces as well.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
Do we yet know how this bill might impact athletes
with DSDs, because right now the Democrats and those who
are voting against this bill are saying one of the
worst possible outcomes is genital testing or other violations of
young girls in order to quote unquote prove their sex
for participation. Side is saying that's never going to happen.
(14:01):
We're just gonna use birth certificates. What happens if a
birth certificate says one thing and either presentation or otherwise
seems to imply, whether you have the science behind it
or not, that there are differences in sex.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
How does that work with this bill?
Speaker 4 (14:16):
Oh, that's a really great question. I'll take it like
in three different parts. So the first is that there
is no specific mention of athletes with differences of sex development.
I think the best indication of how this could possibly
apply be applied is the usage of verbiage genetics at
birth direct quote right, So, if you're somebody who is
(14:38):
X Y and you have a difference of sex development
that would cause you to be assigned female at birth
or in that case, your genetics at birth would be
x y the end. So I think that is probably
the perspective there, though I do not know for sure.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
I would also say.
Speaker 4 (14:53):
That you know, different to the sex development and the
physiology of those athletes, that's something that we talk about
at the elite level that is so rarely an issue
in like seven year old soccer. And again, this bill
makes no distinction between how those conversations are different and
how different subsets of athletes could be affected. It's meant
(15:15):
to be very broad in that sense and also very rigid,
and that there is no flexibility and I don't mean
rigid as a pejorative, just that there is no path
to porkivision.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
There are no exceptions. It's just this is what it is.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
No nuance.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
Yes to your point about if someone was born x Y,
which is typically male, but assigned to female at birth,
I don't believe it would say that on their birth
certificate right that genetic makeup, and oftentimes people with differences
of sex development aren't aware of it until they're tested
or potentially something comes out later. So I don't know
how they would even be able to justify that other than,
(15:51):
like I said, worst case scenarios where someone is participating
and allowed and everything is normal and then all of
a sudden, some parent or otherwise causes a stir as
was the case with folks like Castor Semenya, who was
a sis woman, raised a woman, all that and then
the differences of sex development were what resulted in, you know,
all of the trauma around her ability to participate.
Speaker 4 (16:11):
Yeah, I think that's and that was the second point
that I was going to make is that the reality
is that when you draw a line in the sand,
you draw a boundary, you have to police the boundary.
Speaker 3 (16:21):
And that's one thing that has been a hallmark.
Speaker 4 (16:24):
Of legislation that has passed at the state level across
the country is there's usually some sort of a mechanism
for challenging and then resolving a dispute over.
Speaker 3 (16:32):
A student's gender or sex.
Speaker 4 (16:34):
And ultimately, if your sex is challenged, you have to
prove that you are who you said you are in
some way, and there are some states that allow you
to modify your birth certificate.
Speaker 3 (16:45):
Although what we are seeing is in tandem.
Speaker 4 (16:48):
With the legislation that effects transgender athletes, we're also seeing
legislation that affects a variety of life for transgender people,
whether we're talking about youth access to healthcare, or talk
about access to documents and document changes to match your
documents with your lived experience, your lived identity, and as
(17:09):
that becomes continuously fraud and you and people lose access
to change their documents, becomes a good point whereas you
may not be able to show a birth certificate that's
been amended anyway. But also even if there is evidence
of you being a transgender person anywhere like that could
be surfaced. And that is something that we're also seeing
(17:29):
in terms of athletes who are currently competing under state
law and policy that allows them to compete and participate
in girls' sports in you know, for a variety of
sports at their levels, and they are being outed and
so it's very complicated and it's creating a lot of
fear among transgender youth and their families. But from a
(17:53):
broad level in terms of drawing that line and then
have a and then requiring proof of some kind, you know,
there's a lot of speculator about what that proof could be.
And of course proponents for this legislation would say it's
very simple, show your birth certificate, but it can be
more complicated than that. And also we have seen examples
in other states where this legislation has passed already, where
(18:16):
people are accused of being trans and are not. And
there's also, you know, the trauma of that in terms
of sticking out looking different and then being accused of
being this big, bad boogeyman who shouldn't be.
Speaker 3 (18:33):
Legally able to compete where you're competing.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
So there's just a lot going on in terms of
how these things are going to be resolved, and frankly,
a lot of it is speculative, but that doesn't mean
that a lot of the questions being raised aren't worthy questions.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
The bill was passed in the House with a vote
of two eighteen to two six. Two Democrats voted in favor,
one Democrat voted present. It's expected and next be taken
up to the Senate. Are folks expecting similar support from
the bill in the GOP controlled Senate?
Speaker 3 (19:00):
Oh, you know, that's a really good question. I do
not know.
Speaker 4 (19:03):
I spoke with someone today who is for this legislation.
Who is hopeful that it's going to pass in the Senate,
it would require seven votes to break a filibuster. Candidly,
I do not know if there's seven votes for it.
As a reporter, you know, I'm a sports journalist, and
all of a sudden, I'm like, Oh, do I have
to be a politics journalist?
Speaker 1 (19:24):
Now?
Speaker 2 (19:24):
Yeah? You do? You do? We expect that of you, Katie.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
I will say that from what I read, it's not
clear if it will pass because to your point, at
least seven Democrats would have to vote with the Republican
side to hit the sixty vote threshold, and that's sort
of an uphill battle according to some who believe it
might be tough to pass.
Speaker 4 (19:42):
Yeah, but you know, who knows.
Speaker 3 (19:44):
I think, right, it's certainly an open question.
Speaker 4 (19:47):
There's a nondero chance that it passes, you know, and
for those who are not in favor of this legislation,
that's very worrying. There have been other times where there's
been where like the House passed a similar bill last year,
and there have been other times where this legislation has
been debated, and you know, folks haven't been that worried.
(20:10):
But I would say that certainly people I talk to
are concerned right now.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
And sometimes there's movement that could be unexpected. During that
last session of Congress when they did pass the bill,
one of the Democrats who voted for it this time
voted against it then, So changes of opinion, a gradual
wearing down, changes of language. You just aren't fully certain
ever until the vote is taken. Let's say it does
get pasted in the Senate. Let's talk about the actual outcomes.
So for the last fifty plus years, Title nine was
(20:37):
supposed to keep schools in compliance for nondiscrimination based on
the basis of sex. They would receive federal funding if
they remained in compliance with Title nine. There's a lot
of great benefits to Title nine. But as we celebrated
the fifty aeth the anniversary just a couple of years ago,
what we learned from investigating was that a lot of
schools are not in compliance and there is not a
great enforcement mechanism other than suing threatening to suit to
(21:01):
get schools to comply. Do you have a sense of
whether this legislation, which runs along the same lines of
Title nine, would be enforced more seriously or any differently
than what we've seen with Title nine, which is very hodgepodge.
Speaker 4 (21:14):
You know, I don't know because, like you said, like
the way that title hios and force is through investigations
in the Department of Education the Office for Civil Rights.
You know, those investigations take a very long time. And
also you know, there are questions about what the makeup
of the Department of Education is going to be.
Speaker 3 (21:30):
Like moving forward.
Speaker 4 (21:32):
So how this will be enforced is an open question.
But I have no doubt that certainly for transgender.
Speaker 3 (21:42):
Youths, there will be a chilling effect.
Speaker 4 (21:44):
Yeah, and there already aren't very many transgender kids playing sports,
certainly from a percentage of how many transgender youths there are,
you know, they play sports at a much lower rate
than their's such gender peers. And so in that sense,
you know, I wonder how what that effect will be.
(22:07):
The Department of Education has shown a willingness to enforce
Title nine as it pertains to their interpretation of how
it applies to transgender youth and well and transgender people
in schools and in colleges, and you know that could
also happen again here under this administration. But exactly how
it will be enforced again, that is an open question
(22:27):
and that and there isn't really a good enforcement mechanism
in the text itself.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
One of the evil tricks of bookkeeping for Title nine
is counting male practice players as women in Title nine
reporting to try to meet the numbers and reach equality.
Do we know if this bill would prevent teams, particularly
college teams, which we know often use male practice players
from continue to do so.
Speaker 4 (22:51):
Actually explicitly says the text that it would not, that
it does not say to practice players, which I thought,
which I thought was interesting. You know, I reported a
lot on the San Jose State volleyball story earlier this year,
and there's a lot of discussion about safety, safety for
women athletes who were getting hit in the face with spikes,
(23:12):
et cetera, et cetera. And one of the things that
was brought up to me multiple times was that there
are you know, men who practice with you know, volleyball
players at Power five conferences, and you know, I know
somebody who was a power who was a practice player
for the Ukon women's basketball team, et cetera. It's a
very common practice among women's sports. So I thought that
(23:33):
was an interesting note, Like there wasn't very much well.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
Of course, the practice players are able to at all
times being complete control of their bodies and the effort
that they're putting in solely there to help and never
putting anyone at risk. Unlike in competition. This sounds more
like the protection of boys and men in sports. Ec Well,
we want to make sure we don't mess with the
practice players who are guys.
Speaker 4 (23:52):
Well you said that, I have no comment.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
Well, I get to editorialize, Katie.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
You have to be the one who speaks along the
lines of exactly what it says to the bills, and
I get to just say whatever the fuck I want
about this shit. Well.
Speaker 4 (24:05):
I thought what was interesting though, is like, when we've
been talking about this, well, how does this apply or
like did they consider this like and my answers are like, well,
this wasn't enumerated in the text, this wasn't explicitly said,
but the practice players were. So I thought that was
a really interesting thing that somebody said, Okay, but wait,
we still need to practice with the guys, so please
put that in the text.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
And I just thought that was so true. There.
Speaker 4 (24:30):
Yeah, it's like it's a very grandular understanding of how
women train at the collegiate level. So I just I
don't know, I thought that was noteworthy and just really fascinating.
Speaker 1 (24:39):
Yeah, like somebody who actually knows how it goes down
was in there clearing space for that, while in many
ways ignoring some of the other realities of how this
works in order to push forward the rest of the legislation.
Speaker 4 (24:50):
Or at least leaving other questions completely unanswered.
Speaker 3 (24:53):
Right Like, that is like one answer.
Speaker 4 (24:56):
That's one question that is specifically answered, and others just
or not.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
What are some of the potential unintended consequences that might
result from the passing of this bill?
Speaker 4 (25:05):
Well, like I said, I think the Yeah, there's policing
of a boundary that's set, and that is likely just
statistically to not only affect transgender athletes. You know, it's
a very common experience if you play girls of women's
sports to be accused of being a man, to be
accused of being queer, right like, regardless of whether or
(25:29):
not that is your lived experience, and that is something
for that is harmful I think for a lot of
athletes in girls of women's sports in terms of self
hurt self esteem. For those who are queer, it hurts
their sense of self because being queer as a negative thing. Right,
We've seen some of this movie before in that sense,
(25:49):
and so from an but that also I don't know
if that's an undin headed consequence, to be honest with you,
fair but yeah, you know, I just think that the
the effect of legislation like this that is also really
cultural and culturally relevant. I don't know that we fully
know or grapple with like what that actually will be.
And then I think could very demonstrable effect is that
(26:11):
a lot of transgender kids are not going to feel
welcome in sports and may not play even at.
Speaker 3 (26:16):
A higher rate than they already are playing.
Speaker 1 (26:18):
Yeah, I think a couple points on that the idea that, well,
it says right in there just to use their birth certificate.
Are we for certain that that's what's going to happen
at the granular level at every single school in every
single state, in every single city, as opposed to somebody
feeling that they take it on themselves or feeling like
there must be some way to prove quote unquote something right,
and then it does become an issue of safety and
(26:41):
risk and violation. I think to your point about what
this means for both participation at the youth level and
the feeling of community inclusion. This clearly to me is
taking an issue that is very binary focused and using
it as the first step towards major trans rights and
safety being affected in future policy. Right, if you can
(27:03):
get people on board being anti trans, fear mongering, scaring people,
making trans people the big boogeyman, then you can convince
them later that they also shouldn't be in bathrooms, that
they also shouldn't have protections for employment, that they also
shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
Right. I mean it feels like the sports issue is.
Speaker 1 (27:23):
A political cudgel and an easy one to convince people
of along these lines we've talked about that are often
not scientifically backed or proven, just so that once you
get them on the side of demonizing trans people, then
they'll be further incentivized to pass for future laws and bills.
Speaker 4 (27:38):
I think legislatively at the state level, that is something
that has been seen in terms of the types of
legislation that passes of after passing a bill about sports,
So whether it's access to gender firming care for transgender youth,
restrictions on access to content that involved queer and trans
(28:00):
people from like what we're talking about book bans or
academic restriction in that sense, talking about you know, even
like in some states there have been banned you know,
either actual passage of legislation or attempts to past legislation
that restricts you know, the expression of drag right like,
So there is a wider suite of legislative priorities that
(28:25):
expand out from this topic. Although what I will say
is it's interesting because I think legislatively in some states
you've seen that, and also my experience on the ground
talking to people is you know, they really grapple with
like the sports thing and maybe gender firming healthcare they
have questions about, but the other stuff isn't necessarily on
(28:47):
their radar or they don't necessarily associate this the sports
conversation with the conversation about transgender identity at all. It's
mostly about to them, Oh, well, if you're a signed
male at BURR, why would you be allowed to play
girls sports? That doesn't make sense to me because culturally
and to a certain degree scientifically, you know, there is
(29:10):
an imbalance in terms of access and performance when it
comes to you know, boys and men being typically bigger, faster,
stronger than girls and women, Now what that means at
a variety of levels of sport, and whether or not
that should be applied to intramural and club level sport.
Speaker 3 (29:28):
Like, all of those are.
Speaker 4 (29:29):
Questions, and that are policy questions that I think there's
a real hunger to grapple with meaningfully from the American public. However,
in tandem with that, there is a very aggressive legislative
push to pass restrictive legislation and policy, and that's kind
of where we've been for the last five years. That
(29:50):
doesn't have really any kind of room for nuance and
is very rigid and actually in the United States, the
legislative efforts are more more restrictive than what we've seen
from a global elite sport policy perspective, which I think
is interesting as well.
Speaker 2 (30:06):
Yeah, let's talk about that.
Speaker 1 (30:07):
If we zoom out and look at the larger sports landscape,
this legislation would be federal policy, which then would apply
to all the publicly funded schools in the US. How
does that compare to policy changes we've seen at other
levels like the Olympics or the World Championships.
Speaker 4 (30:19):
Yeah, so the Olympics in twenty twenty one made a
change and said each international federation could come up with
their own policy. They gave them guidelines for what those
policies maybe should look like and things they should consider,
and the international federations largely discarded those Frankly, I think
that's fair to say, and enacted.
Speaker 3 (30:40):
The policies that they wanted to enact.
Speaker 4 (30:42):
And so what we've seen is a number of restrictive
policies like that is the environment.
Speaker 3 (30:47):
There has not been a policy update.
Speaker 4 (30:48):
From a major federation that is more inclusive in the
last four or five years, and that those policies like,
for example, we use swimming which applied. They go out
of their way to say this applies to elite swimming
and World aquatics and World Aquatics events, and says that
if you are a transgender woman you want to be
(31:09):
eligible for women's category, you are not if you've gone
through any part of male puberty. And so if you
began a transition prior to a disost from driven puberty,
theoretically you could be.
Speaker 3 (31:21):
Eligible for women's category.
Speaker 4 (31:22):
So it's a narrow path, but it's still a path
that is not the case in any of the states
that have passed legislation in the United States, and it's
not the case with HR twenty eight that just passed
earlier this week, and so I think that's interesting. It's
a small gap, but it is a gap, and it's
one that certainly proponents of restrictive legislation and policy in
the United States are actively working to close.
Speaker 3 (31:44):
They would like to see global.
Speaker 4 (31:45):
Sports policy mirror more what we have from a legislative
perspective in the United States.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
For sure, it's such a complicated topic.
Speaker 1 (31:52):
There is science, there is politics, there is identity there.
Speaker 2 (31:57):
I mean, it's.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
Something where we under stand now that gender insects are
not binary, and yet we're trying to fit it into
a binary mold, which is always going to be complicated.
But I think what's lost, particularly in a bill like this,
is the fact that it does apply the exact same
to collegiate elite athletes as it does to children. And
it's not even taking into consideration the power of inclusion
(32:19):
and community and participation in teamwork and everything else. So
I want to ask you this last thing. When we
know how much is at stake for the transcommunity, not
just in terms of what sports related things this might
apply to, but when it comes to recent and suggested legislation,
also it might affect basic human rights, medical care, things
like that. It sometimes feels like the folks advocating for
(32:40):
the transcommunity aren't willing to fully engage with the questions
that folks have about fairness and safety, either because they
don't want to come across as equivocating or not fighting
hard enough for inclusion, maybe because they're unwilling to discuss
these issues with folks who are operating in bad faith
or fear mongering or not using science at all. They
don't want to get in the ring with someone who
they know is not going to at a fair fight.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
I understand all of that.
Speaker 1 (33:01):
I struggle at times myself with trying to reconcile where
I do think there might be genetic benefits to being
born male at the highest highest levels, while also saying
there is absolutely no part of me that thinks that
youth should be restricted from competing and playing. Our desire
to prioritize winning over humanity is so clear to me
(33:24):
at the youth levels. How do we or should we
try to push for more of an effort to have
those conversations, to be more honest, even about the things
we don't fully know or that are scientifically unclear to
offset the efforts of the GOP who are so willing
to push false narratives and so willing to use salacious,
fear mongering tactics to try to force people to one side.
Speaker 5 (33:45):
So one of the things I get asked a lot
is like, what's missing from this conversation, right? And my
answer to that almost always is, you know, listening, compassion,
and empathy, And for me, those things are multi way streets.
Speaker 3 (34:04):
And so, you know, if you're somebody who.
Speaker 4 (34:06):
Supports transgender inclusion, I think it's really important to listen
to those who do not, like what is it that
they're saying?
Speaker 3 (34:15):
What are their experiences? Why do they feel that way?
Speaker 4 (34:20):
And you know, I think that's something that can be
really hard to do because so much of this discussion
and debate, if you want to frame it that way,
is rooted in our ideas about gender, are conceptions of self,
our own experiences, and our experiences with the incredibly emotional
(34:41):
thing that is sports.
Speaker 3 (34:42):
It can be I think.
Speaker 4 (34:43):
Really hard and challenging to hear those criticism and challenges
to ideas that you may hold, as you know, an
inclusion activist, that you know, are really core values. And
I think for folks who are transgender, right, that is,
you know, even further compounded because at times the challenges
(35:07):
run folks who favor restrictive policy are to the very
notion of you know, can transgender people even exist?
Speaker 2 (35:14):
Right?
Speaker 4 (35:14):
And so I think especially for folks who are not
trans who are in support of inclusive policy, you know,
it's important to kunderstand in that space if that's something
that you believe in, you to have those harder conversations
and in support of transgender people with whom you are allied.
Speaker 3 (35:30):
And I think the same is true for folks who
are on the.
Speaker 4 (35:32):
Fence, who you know, aren't sure, who have heard different ideas,
or who are in favor of restrictive policy for a
variety of reasons. I think it's incredibly important to hear
the fears of trans people, to engage with the transgender
people about their life experiences and who they are, and
to consider not just the impacts of legislation on your
(35:54):
own family or on you know, inclusive policy on you know,
your daughters as often something that I hear, but also
consider the effects of restrictive policy on young transgender people.
Speaker 3 (36:06):
And that doesn't and I'm not saying that.
Speaker 4 (36:07):
In an effort to get anybody to change their minds.
I just think there's such a gap where folks are
not talking, are not listening, and are not really hearing
the perspectives of, you know, those who disagree with them.
And that's where I have felt. I have felt that
so acutely on this issue over time, as somebody who
(36:29):
sits in the space as a journalist where it is
my job to listen to people from a variety of perspectives,
and I take that very seriously. But then who also
has had like my appearance, politicized my own identity and
politicized and it has experienced that, who's experienced an elevated
level of scrutiny on this issue. I think that gives
(36:50):
me a lot of empathy with you know, folks, you
know within the trans community who are trying to play
sports and then suddenly are in the middle of a firestorm.
Speaker 1 (36:57):
Right.
Speaker 4 (36:58):
So, like, it's very COMPLI katid, it's very nuanced, and
I think we would all do better if we meaningfully engaged, yeah,
with those who with a different opinion than us.
Speaker 1 (37:09):
Yeah, And I think it's only made worse by the
fact that so much of our communication is now done
via the Internet and lobbing insults and facts or not
facts back and forth, as opposed to traditional conversation where
you are seeking to understand what the other person is
saying in order to engage back and forth.
Speaker 2 (37:24):
In the way we communicate now.
Speaker 1 (37:25):
It really allows for some of the worst things to
come out and for us to be unwilling to hear
the other side and placing onto them opinions or beliefs
that they might not even have based solely on their
reticence to agree with something or their pursuit of inclusion
or whatever it is. Katie, we always learn a ton
from you. We know you're super busy in the response
to all of this, so thanks so much for making
time for it.
Speaker 3 (37:45):
Oh thanks for having me on. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (37:49):
Thanks to Katie for taking the time we got to
take another break. See on the other side. Welcome back, slices.
We love that you're listening, but we want you to
get in the game every day too. So here's our
good gameplay of the day by Katie's book. It's called
fair Play. How Sports Shape the Gender Debates. We'll link
(38:12):
to it in our show notes, or you could pick
it up from your local bookstore, and if you're like
Alex while you're at the bookstore, you could move the display.
Speaker 2 (38:20):
Around a little bit.
Speaker 1 (38:20):
So, I don't know, maybe extra copies of Katie's book
somehow make their way in front of Steven A. Smith's
Oh and keep sending us picks of your Unrivaled team
draft pages. It's so fun to see you participating and
playing along, but also not fun to see that you
all have better handwriting than me and Mish.
Speaker 3 (38:36):
We got to work on that.
Speaker 2 (38:37):
We love to hear from you.
Speaker 1 (38:38):
Hit us up on email, good game at wondermediaetwork dot com,
or you can leave us a voicemail at eight seven
two two four fifty seventy and you all know what's
coming next. Don't forget to subscribe, rate and review. That's right,
Just scroll down, find the stars, click, leave us a
beautiful review, give.
Speaker 2 (38:54):
Us five stars.
Speaker 1 (38:55):
It's really easy watch learning that someone else also crunch
the numbers to determine the Gayest Unrivaled club. Rating ten
out of ten Gaydar Alignment points. Review shout out to
friend of the show Frankie de Lacreta, who also did
the math and found out that at least seventeen of
the thirty six players competing in Unrivaled are out as queer.
(39:15):
Frankie's numbers were actually a little higher than Alex's, with
the Laces Basketball Club coming in at number one with
five out of six players. We love to see it, and,
as Frankie writes, quote, this ratio means that gay people
are obligated to watch Unrivaled. Sorry, I don't make the
rules end quote. We'll link to Frankie's full story in
the show notes. Now it's your turn, rate and review.
(39:36):
Thanks for listening, See you tomorrow. Good Game, Katie, Good Game,
Naomio osaka, hw House Republicans. Good Game with Sarah Spain
is an iHeart women's sports production in partnership with Deep
Blue Sports and Entertainment. You can find us on the
iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Production by Wonder Media Network, our producers are Alex Azzie
(39:58):
and Misha Jones. Our executive users are Christina Everett, Jesse Katz,
Jenny Kaplan and Emily Rudder. Our editors are Emily Rutterer,
Britney Martinez, Grace Lynch, and Lindsay Crodowell. Production assistants from
Lucy Jones and I'm your host, Sarah Spain
Welcome to Good Game with Sarah Spain, where we're writing
letters to our representatives telling them all the ways they
actually can support girls and women in sports. It's Thursday,
January sixteenth that on today's show, we'll be talking to
ESPN feature writer Katie Barnes about the news that House
Republicans have passed a bill barring trans athletes from women's sports. Plus,
it pays to be a Husky its core season in
(00:22):
the w and we offer up a little bookstore redecorating advice.
It's all coming up right after this welcome back slices.
Here's what you need to know today. The US House
of Representatives on Tuesday passed a bill that would prohibit
(00:44):
transgender girls and women from competing on school athletic teams
that are designated for female students.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
If the Senate approves the.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
Bill and it goes on to become law, schools that
allow trans girls or women to compete could lose federal funding.
We're going to dive deep into this news with today's
guest Katie Barnes later in the show. College Hoops News,
the Yukon Huskies are the first public women's college program
to report more than three million dollars in annual ticket sales.
That number three point twenty five million, to be exact,
(01:11):
was disclosed on Wednesday as part of the school's most
recent NCAA financial reporting. Per Sportico, Yukon women's basketball generated
more revenue than that reported by seventy five public men's
teams the prior year. We'll link to the full Sportico
report in our show Notes to Soccer.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Former captain of.
Speaker 1 (01:27):
The Kansas City Current Desire Scott is coming out of
her a very brief retirement to join the Ottawa Rapid,
one of the inaugural six clubs in the Northern Super League,
Canada's new pro soccer league. Scott is a four time
Olympian for the Canadian national team, winning Golden Tokyo and
bronze medals at the twenty twelve London and twenty sixteen
Rio Games. All six NSL rosters are starting to fill out.
(01:49):
Among the highlights, longtime Canadian goalie Aaron McLeod has signed
with the Halifax Tides, and American Nikki Stanton, who most
recently played for the NWSL Seattle Rain, has signed to
Vancouver Rise FC. Inaugural NSL season gets underway, in April
to the WNBA. The Seattle Storm have cored Gabby Williams,
who played twelve games for the franchise after helping lead
(02:09):
France to a silver medal at last year's Paras Olympics.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
The court designation.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Means that teams gain the exclusive negotiating rights for players
who are otherwise set to become free agents. In other words,
Williams isn't guaranteed to stay with the Storm, but at
the very least she'll be offered a one year super
max contract, currently worth two hundred and forty nine thou
two hundred and forty four bucks. Each WNBA team has
until January twentieth to extend core designations. Other players who
(02:34):
have already received offers include Las Vegas Kelsey Plum, New
York's Brianna Stewart, and Dallas's Sattuo Sabily, though Sably is
expected to negotiate a trade to another team after announcing
at Unrivaled Pressers she's played her last.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
Game for Dallas.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
To tennis and the Australian Open, Naomi Osaka is into
the third round after defeating world number twenty Carolina Mouhova
in marks Osaka's first time advancing to the third round
of any Grant's line in three years. Osaka, a two
time Australian Open champ, will face Belinda Bencicic. While Osaka's
been successful on the court, it's been a very chaotic
couple of weeks for the twenty seven year old off it.
(03:10):
Last week, she announced that her relationship with longtime partner
Rapper Corde had ended. They started dating in twenty nineteen
and share a daughter, Shi, who.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Is one and a half.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
Osaka also told reporters in Melbourne that the Los Angeles
wildfires made it within three blocks of her home, causing
her to ask someone back home to retrieve her daughter's
birth certificate in case the house was lost in the wildfires.
To pro volleyball, love isn't the only game in town.
The Pro Volleyball Federation just started its second season with
eight teams around the country, and last week the Omaha
(03:41):
Supernovas reset the US pro Volleyball attendance record when thirteen thousy,
four hundred and eighty six people crammed into the Chi
Health Center in downtown Omaha to see the team win
a five set thriller over the Atlanta Vibe. There are
six PVF teams in action tonight, beginning with the Indie
Ignite taken on Grand Rapids and the Columbus Fury at
(04:01):
the Atlanta Vibe, both at seven pm Eastern. Will link
to the full game schedule and tune in info in
our show notes.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
We got to take a quick break. When we come back.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
Everything you need to know about the very inaccurately named
Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act with Katie.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
Barnes joining us now.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
They're an award winning journalists, producer, and author covering the
intersection of sports and gender. Their work has appeared across
multiple ESPN platforms, including ESPN dot Com, Sports Center, Outside
the Lines, and the ESPN Daily Podcast.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
They're a three time GLAD nominee, and we're.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
Named the twenty seventeen Journalist of the Year by the
Association of LGBTQ Journalists. Their book Fair Play, How Sports
Shape the Gender Debates was on Time Magazine's list of
one hundred must read books of twenty twenty three. They
love Bourbon and Disneyland, and they've been to the best
women's sports bar in Chicago more times than I have.
I'm working on it, Katie Barnes what's up, Katie?
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Yo? What's up?
Speaker 3 (05:02):
What an intro? I feel so cool? Thank you?
Speaker 2 (05:05):
Well, I mean you are cool. Fun fact.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Once for a gift, I asked for two books, both
of them named fair Play. I'm sure you recognize that
there's another book also named fair Play that sometimes people
mistake for yours.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Both fantastic books. I got them both for the same birthday.
Speaker 3 (05:19):
I first of all love it. Second of all, yes,
I do know that.
Speaker 4 (05:21):
They're about wildly different things. Yeah, both about gender. So
that's kind of interesting and both fascinating. Thanks for making
time for us last minute.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
You are here today to help us make sense of
the we believe very poorly named Protection of Women and
Girls in Sports Act bill that the House just voted
to pass on Tuesday. So can you sort of break
down what the bill intends to do?
Speaker 4 (05:44):
Yeah, So, what the bill does is it builds on
legislation that has passed across the country that bars trench
into girls and women from participating in girls and women's
sports at the school in collegiate levels. What is different, however,
about the piece of legislation is actually a men's Title
nine to define sex as being determined by a reproductive
(06:06):
biology and genetics at birth direct quote, and then ties
federal funding to the issue of a transgender girls and
women participating girls women's sports by basically saying that you'd
be out of compliance with Title nine if any school
enacted such a policy. So it is incredibly broad in
terms of how far it reaches, but it's also very
(06:27):
specific in that it is at the school level because
it's about federal funding and Title nine and not about
how a state is defining sex or about who's eligible
for school sports. It's different and interesting in that regard
from a policy perspective.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
And it doesn't seek different policies for those levels of education. Right,
So the same policy would apply to a third grader
as a collegiate athlete.
Speaker 4 (06:54):
Yeah, I think there's some question about that, but as
it's written, that is certainly what it looks like, in
that there is no differentiation in the text or any
enumeration of how this would be applied across different school categories.
It basically says federal funding for institutions that you receive it,
which is pretty much every school in the country, and
(07:17):
as we know, Title nine, although we often talk about
it in a collegiate sense and in a women's sports sense.
Title nine applied, it's an equal access education law, so
it applies to any school receiving federal funding, which includes
private schools.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
It includes elementary schools, middle schools.
Speaker 4 (07:36):
And because there is no differentiation at this point as
it's written, that is certainly the interpretation that a lot
of people have of it.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
Yeah, the amendment to the federal law, the Title nine law,
is an interesting one because, as to your point, it
requires that sex will be recognized solely on a person's
reproductive biology and genetics at birth for determining compliance. Those
who are in support of this bill, many of whom
seem to believe that that is the only way to
(08:05):
acknowledge gender, then don't really believe it to be an amendment.
They believe it to be a reinforcement of Title nine,
because their insistence is that the only gender is that
associated with your reproductive biology, whereas Title nine, without saying
so much, has sort of thus far allowed for gender
identity to dictate in many ways.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
Your participation is that accurate?
Speaker 4 (08:30):
Yeah, I mean, I think in general, the core of
the legal dispute around transgender students and transgender athletes participating
in school sports is about how Title nine should be applied.
And also, you know, litigating existing case law about sex
based discrimination. So you have folks who are arguing in
(08:52):
favor of inclusive policy in schools and inclusive policy for
transgender student athletes at.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
The school sports level.
Speaker 4 (09:00):
Mostly you know, looking at this case law that has
been built that goes from this case. It's like Price
Waterhouse be Hopkins from nineteen eighty nine up to Bosstoc,
which is a Title seven ruling about employment discrimination just
from a few years ago, and building their case on
how sex based discrimination applies to sex stereotypes and therefore
(09:21):
would apply to gender identity, et cetera.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
Like, it's a very clear line of thinking in that regard.
Speaker 4 (09:26):
And for those who are in favor of restrictive policy
for transgender students and athletes, they argue that Title nine
does not need any additional discussion, right, Like it says
on the basis.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
Of sex is fixed and immutable.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
The end is what as opposed to gender right, right,
And so the interpretation of these words is core to
all of the legal proceedings that are happening across the
country in terms of challenging the already existing legislation at
the state level as well as you know, the few
Title nine cases specifically that have been litigated as they
(10:02):
pertain to transgender students and schools as well as transgender athletes.
In my brain, I'm doing this calculation of, Oh, it
feels like it would it would be more jarring to
convince people to change existing Title nine law. So in
order to soften that blow, you say you're not actually
changing anything. It's very explicit in what it says about sex.
On the other hand, our government and the people in
(10:26):
charge are rapidly changing, and I wonder if there is
much pushback to the idea of changing Title nine, or
if a lot of the people in Congress and the
Senate actually believe that Title nine is a law whose
strength should be weakened, is a law whose enforcement should
continue to be not properly enforced. Because we saw with
(10:48):
like Betsy de Vas and some others in the previous
Trump administration, there was certainly what felt like a desire.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
To take some of the teeth out of Title nine.
Speaker 4 (10:57):
Well, it's interesting in terms of, you know, taking some
the teeth out of Title nine. It's actually in fascinating
to me because you know, under the first Trump administration,
you know, Betsy Devas in the later years and the
Department of Education, you know, really weabinized Title nine specifically
against transgender athletes and policy as it pertains to transgender
athletes holding up funding in the state of Connecticut for
(11:19):
a couple, like for a completely non related magnet program
in New Haven. Eventually that funding was granted, but that
did happen, and it was specifically about transgender inclusive policy
in the state, as well as forcing Franklin Pierce University
to change its policy that allowed for cc Telford to
(11:40):
compete on its team and then win a national championship
in twenty nineteen in Division two hurdles and on this category.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
Yeah, I think I'm thinking of Betsy Devas trying to
use Title nine in issues of sexual assault.
Speaker 4 (11:54):
Yes, right, so there was like a role back there
and then a weaponization in other spaces.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Interesting.
Speaker 4 (11:59):
But I think what's fascinating about some of this conversation
is that for a lot of the general public, transgender
athletes as an idea and as an issue really came
to the public consciousness around like really with Leah Thomas.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
In twenty twenty one and twenty twenty two.
Speaker 4 (12:16):
But this topic had been a legal football for years
before that, going back to the Obama administration sending out,
you know, basically formal guidance around how to treat transgender
students in schools in twenty sixteen and saying that transgender
youth should be affirmed in this in these ways, and
(12:37):
twenty three states sued the Obama administration over the implementation
of that guidance and it never went into full effect.
And then you have the first Trump administration comes in.
One of the first things they do is rescind that
guidance and so like, this is something that has been
part of a back and forth for years pre dating
I think with the public really began to become aware
(12:58):
of it.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
One of the things that I'm curious about, if the
desire is to make all participation coincide with reproductive biology
and genetics at birth, there are a lot of politicians
who are all too eager to conflate transgender athletes and
athletes with DSDs so differences in sex development, and also
(13:20):
even cisgender women who maybe just present as more masks
or are physically strong or tall or bigger, all those
things that we hear about the worst case scenarios where
parents are yelling at athletes on the field that's a
boy without any proof, without any reason other than this
now desire to sort of take all of the anti
trans rhetoric and apply it in other.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
Spaces as well.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
Do we yet know how this bill might impact athletes
with DSDs, because right now the Democrats and those who
are voting against this bill are saying one of the
worst possible outcomes is genital testing or other violations of
young girls in order to quote unquote prove their sex
for participation. Side is saying that's never going to happen.
(14:01):
We're just gonna use birth certificates. What happens if a
birth certificate says one thing and either presentation or otherwise
seems to imply, whether you have the science behind it
or not, that there are differences in sex.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
How does that work with this bill?
Speaker 4 (14:16):
Oh, that's a really great question. I'll take it like
in three different parts. So the first is that there
is no specific mention of athletes with differences of sex development.
I think the best indication of how this could possibly
apply be applied is the usage of verbiage genetics at
birth direct quote right, So, if you're somebody who is
(14:38):
X Y and you have a difference of sex development
that would cause you to be assigned female at birth
or in that case, your genetics at birth would be
x y the end. So I think that is probably
the perspective there, though I do not know for sure.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
I would also say.
Speaker 4 (14:53):
That you know, different to the sex development and the
physiology of those athletes, that's something that we talk about
at the elite level that is so rarely an issue
in like seven year old soccer. And again, this bill
makes no distinction between how those conversations are different and
how different subsets of athletes could be affected. It's meant
(15:15):
to be very broad in that sense and also very rigid,
and that there is no flexibility and I don't mean
rigid as a pejorative, just that there is no path
to porkivision.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
There are no exceptions. It's just this is what it is.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
No nuance.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
Yes to your point about if someone was born x Y,
which is typically male, but assigned to female at birth,
I don't believe it would say that on their birth
certificate right that genetic makeup, and oftentimes people with differences
of sex development aren't aware of it until they're tested
or potentially something comes out later. So I don't know
how they would even be able to justify that other than,
(15:51):
like I said, worst case scenarios where someone is participating
and allowed and everything is normal and then all of
a sudden, some parent or otherwise causes a stir as
was the case with folks like Castor Semenya, who was
a sis woman, raised a woman, all that and then
the differences of sex development were what resulted in, you know,
all of the trauma around her ability to participate.
Speaker 4 (16:11):
Yeah, I think that's and that was the second point
that I was going to make is that the reality
is that when you draw a line in the sand,
you draw a boundary, you have to police the boundary.
Speaker 3 (16:21):
And that's one thing that has been a hallmark.
Speaker 4 (16:24):
Of legislation that has passed at the state level across
the country is there's usually some sort of a mechanism
for challenging and then resolving a dispute over.
Speaker 3 (16:32):
A student's gender or sex.
Speaker 4 (16:34):
And ultimately, if your sex is challenged, you have to
prove that you are who you said you are in
some way, and there are some states that allow you
to modify your birth certificate.
Speaker 3 (16:45):
Although what we are seeing is in tandem.
Speaker 4 (16:48):
With the legislation that effects transgender athletes, we're also seeing
legislation that affects a variety of life for transgender people,
whether we're talking about youth access to healthcare, or talk
about access to documents and document changes to match your
documents with your lived experience, your lived identity, and as
(17:09):
that becomes continuously fraud and you and people lose access
to change their documents, becomes a good point whereas you
may not be able to show a birth certificate that's
been amended anyway. But also even if there is evidence
of you being a transgender person anywhere like that could
be surfaced. And that is something that we're also seeing
(17:29):
in terms of athletes who are currently competing under state
law and policy that allows them to compete and participate
in girls' sports in you know, for a variety of
sports at their levels, and they are being outed and
so it's very complicated and it's creating a lot of
fear among transgender youth and their families. But from a
(17:53):
broad level in terms of drawing that line and then
have a and then requiring proof of some kind, you know,
there's a lot of speculator about what that proof could be.
And of course proponents for this legislation would say it's
very simple, show your birth certificate, but it can be
more complicated than that. And also we have seen examples
in other states where this legislation has passed already, where
(18:16):
people are accused of being trans and are not. And
there's also, you know, the trauma of that in terms
of sticking out looking different and then being accused of
being this big, bad boogeyman who shouldn't be.
Speaker 3 (18:33):
Legally able to compete where you're competing.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
So there's just a lot going on in terms of
how these things are going to be resolved, and frankly,
a lot of it is speculative, but that doesn't mean
that a lot of the questions being raised aren't worthy questions.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
The bill was passed in the House with a vote
of two eighteen to two six. Two Democrats voted in favor,
one Democrat voted present. It's expected and next be taken
up to the Senate. Are folks expecting similar support from
the bill in the GOP controlled Senate?
Speaker 3 (19:00):
Oh, you know, that's a really good question. I do
not know.
Speaker 4 (19:03):
I spoke with someone today who is for this legislation.
Who is hopeful that it's going to pass in the Senate,
it would require seven votes to break a filibuster. Candidly,
I do not know if there's seven votes for it.
As a reporter, you know, I'm a sports journalist, and
all of a sudden, I'm like, Oh, do I have
to be a politics journalist?
Speaker 1 (19:24):
Now?
Speaker 2 (19:24):
Yeah? You do? You do? We expect that of you, Katie.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
I will say that from what I read, it's not
clear if it will pass because to your point, at
least seven Democrats would have to vote with the Republican
side to hit the sixty vote threshold, and that's sort
of an uphill battle according to some who believe it
might be tough to pass.
Speaker 4 (19:42):
Yeah, but you know, who knows.
Speaker 3 (19:44):
I think, right, it's certainly an open question.
Speaker 4 (19:47):
There's a nondero chance that it passes, you know, and
for those who are not in favor of this legislation,
that's very worrying. There have been other times where there's
been where like the House passed a similar bill last year,
and there have been other times where this legislation has
been debated, and you know, folks haven't been that worried.
(20:10):
But I would say that certainly people I talk to
are concerned right now.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
And sometimes there's movement that could be unexpected. During that
last session of Congress when they did pass the bill,
one of the Democrats who voted for it this time
voted against it then, So changes of opinion, a gradual
wearing down, changes of language. You just aren't fully certain
ever until the vote is taken. Let's say it does
get pasted in the Senate. Let's talk about the actual outcomes.
So for the last fifty plus years, Title nine was
(20:37):
supposed to keep schools in compliance for nondiscrimination based on
the basis of sex. They would receive federal funding if
they remained in compliance with Title nine. There's a lot
of great benefits to Title nine. But as we celebrated
the fifty aeth the anniversary just a couple of years ago,
what we learned from investigating was that a lot of
schools are not in compliance and there is not a
great enforcement mechanism other than suing threatening to suit to
(21:01):
get schools to comply. Do you have a sense of
whether this legislation, which runs along the same lines of
Title nine, would be enforced more seriously or any differently
than what we've seen with Title nine, which is very hodgepodge.
Speaker 4 (21:14):
You know, I don't know because, like you said, like
the way that title hios and force is through investigations
in the Department of Education the Office for Civil Rights.
You know, those investigations take a very long time. And
also you know, there are questions about what the makeup
of the Department of Education is going to be.
Speaker 3 (21:30):
Like moving forward.
Speaker 4 (21:32):
So how this will be enforced is an open question.
But I have no doubt that certainly for transgender.
Speaker 3 (21:42):
Youths, there will be a chilling effect.
Speaker 4 (21:44):
Yeah, and there already aren't very many transgender kids playing sports,
certainly from a percentage of how many transgender youths there are,
you know, they play sports at a much lower rate
than their's such gender peers. And so in that sense,
you know, I wonder how what that effect will be.
(22:07):
The Department of Education has shown a willingness to enforce
Title nine as it pertains to their interpretation of how
it applies to transgender youth and well and transgender people
in schools and in colleges, and you know that could
also happen again here under this administration. But exactly how
it will be enforced again, that is an open question
(22:27):
and that and there isn't really a good enforcement mechanism
in the text itself.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
One of the evil tricks of bookkeeping for Title nine
is counting male practice players as women in Title nine
reporting to try to meet the numbers and reach equality.
Do we know if this bill would prevent teams, particularly
college teams, which we know often use male practice players
from continue to do so.
Speaker 4 (22:51):
Actually explicitly says the text that it would not, that
it does not say to practice players, which I thought,
which I thought was interesting. You know, I reported a
lot on the San Jose State volleyball story earlier this year,
and there's a lot of discussion about safety, safety for
women athletes who were getting hit in the face with spikes,
(23:12):
et cetera, et cetera. And one of the things that
was brought up to me multiple times was that there
are you know, men who practice with you know, volleyball
players at Power five conferences, and you know, I know
somebody who was a power who was a practice player
for the Ukon women's basketball team, et cetera. It's a
very common practice among women's sports. So I thought that
(23:33):
was an interesting note, Like there wasn't very much well.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
Of course, the practice players are able to at all
times being complete control of their bodies and the effort
that they're putting in solely there to help and never
putting anyone at risk. Unlike in competition. This sounds more
like the protection of boys and men in sports. Ec Well,
we want to make sure we don't mess with the
practice players who are guys.
Speaker 4 (23:52):
Well you said that, I have no comment.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
Well, I get to editorialize, Katie.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
You have to be the one who speaks along the
lines of exactly what it says to the bills, and
I get to just say whatever the fuck I want
about this shit. Well.
Speaker 4 (24:05):
I thought what was interesting though, is like, when we've
been talking about this, well, how does this apply or
like did they consider this like and my answers are like, well,
this wasn't enumerated in the text, this wasn't explicitly said,
but the practice players were. So I thought that was
a really interesting thing that somebody said, Okay, but wait,
we still need to practice with the guys, so please
put that in the text.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
And I just thought that was so true. There.
Speaker 4 (24:30):
Yeah, it's like it's a very grandular understanding of how
women train at the collegiate level. So I just I
don't know, I thought that was noteworthy and just really fascinating.
Speaker 1 (24:39):
Yeah, like somebody who actually knows how it goes down
was in there clearing space for that, while in many
ways ignoring some of the other realities of how this
works in order to push forward the rest of the legislation.
Speaker 4 (24:50):
Or at least leaving other questions completely unanswered.
Speaker 3 (24:53):
Right Like, that is like one answer.
Speaker 4 (24:56):
That's one question that is specifically answered, and others just
or not.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
What are some of the potential unintended consequences that might
result from the passing of this bill?
Speaker 4 (25:05):
Well, like I said, I think the Yeah, there's policing
of a boundary that's set, and that is likely just
statistically to not only affect transgender athletes. You know, it's
a very common experience if you play girls of women's
sports to be accused of being a man, to be
accused of being queer, right like, regardless of whether or
(25:29):
not that is your lived experience, and that is something
for that is harmful I think for a lot of
athletes in girls of women's sports in terms of self
hurt self esteem. For those who are queer, it hurts
their sense of self because being queer as a negative thing. Right,
We've seen some of this movie before in that sense,
(25:49):
and so from an but that also I don't know
if that's an undin headed consequence, to be honest with you,
fair but yeah, you know, I just think that the
the effect of legislation like this that is also really
cultural and culturally relevant. I don't know that we fully
know or grapple with like what that actually will be.
And then I think could very demonstrable effect is that
(26:11):
a lot of transgender kids are not going to feel
welcome in sports and may not play even at.
Speaker 3 (26:16):
A higher rate than they already are playing.
Speaker 1 (26:18):
Yeah, I think a couple points on that the idea that, well,
it says right in there just to use their birth certificate.
Are we for certain that that's what's going to happen
at the granular level at every single school in every
single state, in every single city, as opposed to somebody
feeling that they take it on themselves or feeling like
there must be some way to prove quote unquote something right,
and then it does become an issue of safety and
(26:41):
risk and violation. I think to your point about what
this means for both participation at the youth level and
the feeling of community inclusion. This clearly to me is
taking an issue that is very binary focused and using
it as the first step towards major trans rights and
safety being affected in future policy. Right, if you can
(27:03):
get people on board being anti trans, fear mongering, scaring people,
making trans people the big boogeyman, then you can convince
them later that they also shouldn't be in bathrooms, that
they also shouldn't have protections for employment, that they also
shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
Right. I mean it feels like the sports issue is.
Speaker 1 (27:23):
A political cudgel and an easy one to convince people
of along these lines we've talked about that are often
not scientifically backed or proven, just so that once you
get them on the side of demonizing trans people, then
they'll be further incentivized to pass for future laws and bills.
Speaker 4 (27:38):
I think legislatively at the state level, that is something
that has been seen in terms of the types of
legislation that passes of after passing a bill about sports,
So whether it's access to gender firming care for transgender youth,
restrictions on access to content that involved queer and trans
(28:00):
people from like what we're talking about book bans or
academic restriction in that sense, talking about you know, even
like in some states there have been banned you know,
either actual passage of legislation or attempts to past legislation
that restricts you know, the expression of drag right like,
So there is a wider suite of legislative priorities that
(28:25):
expand out from this topic. Although what I will say
is it's interesting because I think legislatively in some states
you've seen that, and also my experience on the ground
talking to people is you know, they really grapple with
like the sports thing and maybe gender firming healthcare they
have questions about, but the other stuff isn't necessarily on
(28:47):
their radar or they don't necessarily associate this the sports
conversation with the conversation about transgender identity at all. It's
mostly about to them, Oh, well, if you're a signed
male at BURR, why would you be allowed to play
girls sports? That doesn't make sense to me because culturally
and to a certain degree scientifically, you know, there is
(29:10):
an imbalance in terms of access and performance when it
comes to you know, boys and men being typically bigger, faster,
stronger than girls and women, Now what that means at
a variety of levels of sport, and whether or not
that should be applied to intramural and club level sport.
Speaker 3 (29:28):
Like, all of those are.
Speaker 4 (29:29):
Questions, and that are policy questions that I think there's
a real hunger to grapple with meaningfully from the American public. However,
in tandem with that, there is a very aggressive legislative
push to pass restrictive legislation and policy, and that's kind
of where we've been for the last five years. That
(29:50):
doesn't have really any kind of room for nuance and
is very rigid and actually in the United States, the
legislative efforts are more more restrictive than what we've seen
from a global elite sport policy perspective, which I think
is interesting as well.
Speaker 2 (30:06):
Yeah, let's talk about that.
Speaker 1 (30:07):
If we zoom out and look at the larger sports landscape,
this legislation would be federal policy, which then would apply
to all the publicly funded schools in the US. How
does that compare to policy changes we've seen at other
levels like the Olympics or the World Championships.
Speaker 4 (30:19):
Yeah, so the Olympics in twenty twenty one made a
change and said each international federation could come up with
their own policy. They gave them guidelines for what those
policies maybe should look like and things they should consider,
and the international federations largely discarded those Frankly, I think
that's fair to say, and enacted.
Speaker 3 (30:40):
The policies that they wanted to enact.
Speaker 4 (30:42):
And so what we've seen is a number of restrictive
policies like that is the environment.
Speaker 3 (30:47):
There has not been a policy update.
Speaker 4 (30:48):
From a major federation that is more inclusive in the
last four or five years, and that those policies like,
for example, we use swimming which applied. They go out
of their way to say this applies to elite swimming
and World aquatics and World Aquatics events, and says that
if you are a transgender woman you want to be
(31:09):
eligible for women's category, you are not if you've gone
through any part of male puberty. And so if you
began a transition prior to a disost from driven puberty,
theoretically you could be.
Speaker 3 (31:21):
Eligible for women's category.
Speaker 4 (31:22):
So it's a narrow path, but it's still a path
that is not the case in any of the states
that have passed legislation in the United States, and it's
not the case with HR twenty eight that just passed
earlier this week, and so I think that's interesting. It's
a small gap, but it is a gap, and it's
one that certainly proponents of restrictive legislation and policy in
the United States are actively working to close.
Speaker 3 (31:44):
They would like to see global.
Speaker 4 (31:45):
Sports policy mirror more what we have from a legislative
perspective in the United States.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
For sure, it's such a complicated topic.
Speaker 1 (31:52):
There is science, there is politics, there is identity there.
Speaker 2 (31:57):
I mean, it's.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
Something where we under stand now that gender insects are
not binary, and yet we're trying to fit it into
a binary mold, which is always going to be complicated.
But I think what's lost, particularly in a bill like this,
is the fact that it does apply the exact same
to collegiate elite athletes as it does to children. And
it's not even taking into consideration the power of inclusion
(32:19):
and community and participation in teamwork and everything else. So
I want to ask you this last thing. When we
know how much is at stake for the transcommunity, not
just in terms of what sports related things this might
apply to, but when it comes to recent and suggested legislation,
also it might affect basic human rights, medical care, things
like that. It sometimes feels like the folks advocating for
(32:40):
the transcommunity aren't willing to fully engage with the questions
that folks have about fairness and safety, either because they
don't want to come across as equivocating or not fighting
hard enough for inclusion, maybe because they're unwilling to discuss
these issues with folks who are operating in bad faith
or fear mongering or not using science at all. They
don't want to get in the ring with someone who
they know is not going to at a fair fight.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
I understand all of that.
Speaker 1 (33:01):
I struggle at times myself with trying to reconcile where
I do think there might be genetic benefits to being
born male at the highest highest levels, while also saying
there is absolutely no part of me that thinks that
youth should be restricted from competing and playing. Our desire
to prioritize winning over humanity is so clear to me
(33:24):
at the youth levels. How do we or should we
try to push for more of an effort to have
those conversations, to be more honest, even about the things
we don't fully know or that are scientifically unclear to
offset the efforts of the GOP who are so willing
to push false narratives and so willing to use salacious,
fear mongering tactics to try to force people to one side.
Speaker 5 (33:45):
So one of the things I get asked a lot
is like, what's missing from this conversation, right? And my
answer to that almost always is, you know, listening, compassion,
and empathy, And for me, those things are multi way streets.
Speaker 3 (34:04):
And so, you know, if you're somebody who.
Speaker 4 (34:06):
Supports transgender inclusion, I think it's really important to listen
to those who do not, like what is it that
they're saying?
Speaker 3 (34:15):
What are their experiences? Why do they feel that way?
Speaker 4 (34:20):
And you know, I think that's something that can be
really hard to do because so much of this discussion
and debate, if you want to frame it that way,
is rooted in our ideas about gender, are conceptions of self,
our own experiences, and our experiences with the incredibly emotional
(34:41):
thing that is sports.
Speaker 3 (34:42):
It can be I think.
Speaker 4 (34:43):
Really hard and challenging to hear those criticism and challenges
to ideas that you may hold, as you know, an
inclusion activist, that you know, are really core values. And
I think for folks who are transgender, right, that is,
you know, even further compounded because at times the challenges
(35:07):
run folks who favor restrictive policy are to the very
notion of you know, can transgender people even exist?
Speaker 2 (35:14):
Right?
Speaker 4 (35:14):
And so I think especially for folks who are not
trans who are in support of inclusive policy, you know,
it's important to kunderstand in that space if that's something
that you believe in, you to have those harder conversations
and in support of transgender people with whom you are allied.
Speaker 3 (35:30):
And I think the same is true for folks who
are on the.
Speaker 4 (35:32):
Fence, who you know, aren't sure, who have heard different ideas,
or who are in favor of restrictive policy for a
variety of reasons. I think it's incredibly important to hear
the fears of trans people, to engage with the transgender
people about their life experiences and who they are, and
to consider not just the impacts of legislation on your
(35:54):
own family or on you know, inclusive policy on you know,
your daughters as often something that I hear, but also
consider the effects of restrictive policy on young transgender people.
Speaker 3 (36:06):
And that doesn't and I'm not saying that.
Speaker 4 (36:07):
In an effort to get anybody to change their minds.
I just think there's such a gap where folks are
not talking, are not listening, and are not really hearing
the perspectives of, you know, those who disagree with them.
And that's where I have felt. I have felt that
so acutely on this issue over time, as somebody who
(36:29):
sits in the space as a journalist where it is
my job to listen to people from a variety of perspectives,
and I take that very seriously. But then who also
has had like my appearance, politicized my own identity and
politicized and it has experienced that, who's experienced an elevated
level of scrutiny on this issue. I think that gives
(36:50):
me a lot of empathy with you know, folks, you
know within the trans community who are trying to play
sports and then suddenly are in the middle of a firestorm.
Speaker 1 (36:57):
Right.
Speaker 4 (36:58):
So, like, it's very COMPLI katid, it's very nuanced, and
I think we would all do better if we meaningfully engaged, yeah,
with those who with a different opinion than us.
Speaker 1 (37:09):
Yeah, And I think it's only made worse by the
fact that so much of our communication is now done
via the Internet and lobbing insults and facts or not
facts back and forth, as opposed to traditional conversation where
you are seeking to understand what the other person is
saying in order to engage back and forth.
Speaker 2 (37:24):
In the way we communicate now.
Speaker 1 (37:25):
It really allows for some of the worst things to
come out and for us to be unwilling to hear
the other side and placing onto them opinions or beliefs
that they might not even have based solely on their
reticence to agree with something or their pursuit of inclusion
or whatever it is. Katie, we always learn a ton
from you. We know you're super busy in the response
to all of this, so thanks so much for making
time for it.
Speaker 3 (37:45):
Oh thanks for having me on. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (37:49):
Thanks to Katie for taking the time we got to
take another break. See on the other side. Welcome back, slices.
We love that you're listening, but we want you to
get in the game every day too. So here's our
good gameplay of the day by Katie's book. It's called
fair Play. How Sports Shape the Gender Debates. We'll link
(38:12):
to it in our show notes, or you could pick
it up from your local bookstore, and if you're like
Alex while you're at the bookstore, you could move the display.
Speaker 2 (38:20):
Around a little bit.
Speaker 1 (38:20):
So, I don't know, maybe extra copies of Katie's book
somehow make their way in front of Steven A. Smith's
Oh and keep sending us picks of your Unrivaled team
draft pages. It's so fun to see you participating and
playing along, but also not fun to see that you
all have better handwriting than me and Mish.
Speaker 3 (38:36):
We got to work on that.
Speaker 2 (38:37):
We love to hear from you.
Speaker 1 (38:38):
Hit us up on email, good game at wondermediaetwork dot com,
or you can leave us a voicemail at eight seven
two two four fifty seventy and you all know what's
coming next. Don't forget to subscribe, rate and review. That's right,
Just scroll down, find the stars, click, leave us a
beautiful review, give.
Speaker 2 (38:54):
Us five stars.
Speaker 1 (38:55):
It's really easy watch learning that someone else also crunch
the numbers to determine the Gayest Unrivaled club. Rating ten
out of ten Gaydar Alignment points. Review shout out to
friend of the show Frankie de Lacreta, who also did
the math and found out that at least seventeen of
the thirty six players competing in Unrivaled are out as queer.
(39:15):
Frankie's numbers were actually a little higher than Alex's, with
the Laces Basketball Club coming in at number one with
five out of six players. We love to see it, and,
as Frankie writes, quote, this ratio means that gay people
are obligated to watch Unrivaled. Sorry, I don't make the
rules end quote. We'll link to Frankie's full story in
the show notes. Now it's your turn, rate and review.
(39:36):
Thanks for listening, See you tomorrow. Good Game, Katie, Good Game,
Naomio osaka, hw House Republicans. Good Game with Sarah Spain
is an iHeart women's sports production in partnership with Deep
Blue Sports and Entertainment. You can find us on the
iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Production by Wonder Media Network, our producers are Alex Azzie
(39:58):
and Misha Jones. Our executive users are Christina Everett, Jesse Katz,
Jenny Kaplan and Emily Rudder. Our editors are Emily Rutterer,
Britney Martinez, Grace Lynch, and Lindsay Crodowell. Production assistants from
Lucy Jones and I'm your host, Sarah Spain
Host
Sarah Spain
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Intentionally Disturbing
Join me on this podcast as I navigate the murky waters of human behavior, current events, and personal anecdotes through in-depth interviews with incredible people—all served with a generous helping of sarcasm and satire. After years as a forensic and clinical psychologist, I offer a unique interview style and a low tolerance for bullshit, quickly steering conversations toward depth and darkness. I honor the seriousness while also appreciating wit. I’m your guide through the twisted labyrinth of the human psyche, armed with dark humor and biting wit.