Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
The bill amends Title 36 of the U.S. Code to define “female,” “male,” and “sex” in biological terms tied to reproductive systems. It adds an eligibility rule prohibiting a person whose sex is male from participating in athletic competitions designated for females, women, or girls under amateur sports governing organizations.
Progressives emphasize civil-rights harms to transgender people
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a compact substantive statute that amends specified sections of Title 36 to add definitions and impose a categorical eligibility prohibition.
The bill amends Title 36 of the U.S. Code to define “female,” “male,” and “sex” in biological terms tied to reproductive systems.
It adds an eligibility rule prohibiting a person whose sex is male from participating in athletic competitions designated for females, women, or girls under amateur sports governing organizations.
The changes apply to eligibility requirements for amateur Olympic and similar athletic competitions.
Narrow statutory change but highly controversial; low fiscal cost helps, yet strong ideological opposition and likely legal challenges lower prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a compact substantive statute that amends specified sections of Title 36 to add definitions and impose a categorical eligibility prohibition. It is explicit about the legal change but sparse on implementation, enforcement, funding, and dispute-resolution detail.
Progressives emphasize civil-rights harms to transgender people
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize civil-rights harms to transgender people
Likely to view the bill as discriminatory toward transgender women and harmful to civil rights and inclusion in sports.
They will see the bill’s biological definitions and categorical exclusion as an imposition that harms transgender and gender-diverse people.
Views the bill as addressing legitimate fairness concerns but worries about blunt federal rules and unintended harms.
Prefers sport-specific, evidence-based standards rather than a categorical federal exclusion.
Likely to strongly support the bill as a protection of women’s sports and opportunities for biological females.
Sees the biological definitions and categorical prohibition as necessary to preserve fairness and safety in female-designated competitions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow statutory change but highly controversial; low fiscal cost helps, yet strong ideological opposition and likely legal challenges lower prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize civil-rights harms to transgender people
Narrow statutory change but highly controversial; low fiscal cost helps, yet strong ideological opposition and likely legal challenges lowe…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a compact substantive statute that amends specified sections of Title 36 to add definitions and impose a categorical eligibility prohibition. It is explicit about…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.