Sen. Elizabeth Warren speaks in Des Moines, Iowa, November 1, 2019. (Eric Thayer/Reuters)

Elizabeth Warren issued a tweet this afternoon that perfectly illustrated a serious challenge that transgender ideology poses to the progressive worldview:

Trans athletes are not a threat. We need to protect trans kids—and all LGBTQ+ kids—and ensure they feel safe and welcomed at school. I urge the Arizona legislature to reject this cruel bill. https://t.co/9ALVjeIBiv — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) February 20, 2020

Far from being “cruel,” the Arizona bill in question provides that sports teams or athletic events designated for females would be closed “to students of the male sex.” In other words: Biological males who self-identify as women may not enter athletic events to compete against biological females.


Not so long ago, no one would’ve questioned the commonsense nature of such a proposal. No such law would be required. But times have changed, and quickly.

“Female student-athletes should not be forced to compete in a sport against biological males, who possess inherent physiological advantages,” says Arizona state representative Nancy Barto, the bill’s sponsor. “When this is allowed, it discourages female participation in athletics and, worse, it can result in women and girls being denied crucial educational and financial opportunities.”


Barto is correct. Three female high-school athletes in Connecticut, for instance, have just filed a federal lawsuit alleging that they have lost “opportunities for participation, recruitment, and scholarships” as a result of state policy permitting biological males to compete against females if they self-identify as women.

Along with the equally contentious debate over gender-specific restrooms and privacy rights, the burgeoning debate over transgender athletes in female sports has exposed a weakness in the progressive worldview. How can a politician like Elizabeth Warren, a self-styled feminist who explicitly advertises her platform and campaign as an advance for women, justify her opposition to this legislation?


She can’t, which is why she has chosen to claim that the law does something else entirely.