DV Journal

Lily Williams worked hard to obtain spots on the Hempfield High School girls’ track and field and cross-country teams.

But everything changed when a boy joined her girls’ team and showed up in their Lancaster locker room.

“Our team was a safe place, mentally and emotionally,” said Williams, who spoke at a press conference Monday for the Save Women’s Sports Act.

Then came a biological male identifying as female, a male who was “bigger, faster, and stronger” than the girls on the team.

The girls were confused, upset, and angry. Some started using outside Porta Potties to change in instead of the locker room. Williams, the team captain, approached the coach to tell him about her teammates’ concerns. The coach said nothing could be done, and he could not even talk to her about it.

“The fact was he was a boy and despite all the lies he was told, and the lies he told himself, he did not belong on the girls’ team.”

State Sens. Judy Ward (R-Blair) and Tracy Pennycuick (R-Montgomery) agree. They sponsored the Protect Girls and Women in Sports Act, which passed the Senate last week in a 32-18 vote.

Ward called the legislation “simply common sense.”

“As an athlete in my youth, and the mother of girls who competed in sports, I know the valuable lessons learned from competing in women’s athletics, such as leadership, grit, graciousness in winning and humility in losing,” Pennycuick added. “Let’s keep a level playing field in sports.”

The measure would ensure athletic teams designated for women are reserved for biological females in Pennsylvania’s K–12 and collegiate sports.

“According to the American College of Sports Medicine, males on average have larger hearts and lungs, greater stroke volume, and higher hemoglobin concentration, more muscle mass, less percentage body fat, and use energy more efficiently than females. All these advantages mean that for athletic events relying on endurance, strength, speed and power, males usually outperform females by 10 to 30 percent, depending on the sport,” Ward said.

“Since 2020 in Pennsylvania, 37 female athletes have lost first place and another 13 lost second or third place to men who were competing in their sports,” said Ward. Across the country, it has happened more than 100 times, and it’s caused girls and women to lose scholarships and trophies.

Emily Krebs, with Pennsylvania Family Council, supports the bill. Krebs said swimming on a team had a lasting impact on her, giving her the confidence to tackle challenges.

“I’m the mother of a young girl, and I want her to have a fair playing field,” said Krebs. “But unless something changes, unless we enact Senate Bill 9, she won’t have that.”

Krebs remembered seeing Lia Thomas, a male swimmer, win the women’s 500 freestyle in the Ivy League championship swimming for the University of Pennsylvania. He won that race “by over 7 seconds,” she said. “For the women, they were left racing for second in their own category.”

“Males continue to compete in Pennsylvania today in women’s sports,” she said. “Earlier this year, a male athlete competed in the indoor girls’ track and field competition. Two years ago, a male athlete made it to the PIAA championships in both the shot put and the discus in the women’s category. In order to win at the level, he had to displace girls in regional competitions and other levels. How many girls lost out on opportunities?”

Multiple polls show a strong majority of voters support keeping biological males out of girls’ sports and spaces. Elected Democrats, however, have largely ignored the polls and continue opposing legislation that connects gender to biology.

For Pennycuick, denying women their own opportunities violates federal law, which is why, she says, Pennsylvania lawmakers should step up on their behalf.

“As a cosponsor of the bill, I believe this is solely about fairness and opportunity and upholding the intent of Title IX. When a biological male replaces a female athlete, that individual is denied the right to equal participation as guaranteed under Title IX.”

The bill now goes to the House, where Democrats have a slim, one-vote majority.

Rep. Barbara Gleim (R-Cumberland) said she has a similar bill pending in the House Education Committee. The Senate bill is also in that committee. But because they are in the minority, they have to wait for the majority to bring the bill forward.

“I’m hopeful the majority chair will bring up the bill because it’s a fairly popular bill. It polls at 80-20. Eighty percent of the people do not believe that boys should be playing sports against girls,” said Gleim.

Ward said, “I call on the House to take up this vital legislation right away. Does it have to be your daughter for it to matter?”

In the shifting sands of American politics, the Democratic Party stands at a pivotal moment. Frequently cast as the Party of “Yes,” Democrats have embraced a host of progressive causes — abortion rights, expansive immigration policies, and LGBTQ+ inclusion, to name a few. 

This tendency often places them on the minority side of issues where public opinion leans heavily the other way: the 20 side of an 80-20 split. Conversely, Republicans, dubbed the Party of “No,” have thrived by aligning with the majority 80 side. 

If Democrats hope to reclaim electoral dominance and preserve a balanced political system, they must learn to say “no” to some of their more divisive positions.

Consider abortion. Democrats champion largely unrestricted access, a stance that resonates with a vocal minority. Yet, a 2023 Gallup poll reveals that 60 percent of Americans favor abortion being legal only under certain circumstances, while 34 percent support it in all cases. By clinging to the 20 percent view, Democrats risk estranging the broader electorate who seek a middle ground.

Illegal immigration tells a similar story. Democrats often emphasize compassion and pathways to citizenship, but a 2022 Pew Research Center survey found that 70 percent of Americans prioritize reducing illegal immigration. The party’s reluctance to focus on enforcement leaves them open to accusations of being soft on border security, a position that fails to inspire the majority.

LGBTQ+ issues further highlight this disconnect. Democrats have been trailblazers for equality, yet some of their stances — like supporting biological men in women’s sports — face stiff resistance. A 2021 Gallup poll showed that 62 percent of Americans believe transgender athletes should compete based on their biological sex, not gender identity. Advocating for biological men in women’s locker rooms, while rooted in inclusivity, often feels esoteric to the typical voter.

Then there are more extreme examples: neopronouns, keying Teslas, looting and rioting, fiery but mostly peaceful protests, burning the American flag or saluting alternate flags, and encouraging assassinations. These actions, linked to fringe elements of the left, cast a shadow over the Democratic brand. Though the party may not explicitly endorse such behaviors, its hesitance to denounce them outright can be perceived as tacit approval, alienating voters who value law and order.

Another glaring example of Democrats’ struggle with the 80-20 divide is their difficulty in answering a seemingly simple question: “What is a woman?” When pressed, many Democratic leaders dodge the question or offer convoluted responses, fearing backlash from progressive factions. Yet, a 2023 YouGov poll found that 79 percent of Americans believe defining “woman” based on biological sex is either somewhat or very important. This disconnect highlights the party’s reluctance to affirm commonsense definitions, alienating voters.

History offers a cautionary tale. Homosexuality, once illegal and socially taboo, is now embraced by a majority of Americans — a shift driven by decades of advocacy and cultural evolution. Democrats played a key role in this transformation, but they must now ask: what’s next? Are there additions to the LGBTQ+ community — perhaps identities or practices currently illegal or widely opposed — that the party might champion prematurely?

To start winning again, Democrats must master the art of saying “no.” This won’t be easy — their base has grown accustomed to hearing “yes” on various issues, from social justice to environmental reforms. By strategically rejecting their most contentious positions, Democrats can broaden their appeal. For instance, moderating their stance on abortion to align with the majority who favor restrictions or emphasizing border security alongside immigration reform could bring them closer to the 80 percent side of these debates.

This shift isn’t about abandoning core values; it’s about pragmatism. Take education: Democratic support for progressive curricula has sparked parental backlash. A 2022 American Federation of Teachers survey showed that 58 percent of parents want schools to prioritize core academics over social issues. Saying “no” to divisive educational policies could rebuild trust with families.

America deserves a balanced political system in which both parties offer credible alternatives. If Democrats don’t start putting their foot down, the nation risks sliding into an ideological monopoly dominated by a single party’s vision. The stakes are high: a healthy democracy thrives on competition, not conformity.

The path forward requires Democrats to balance idealism with realism. Saying “no” to some of their base’s demands while advancing justice and equality could reconnect them with the broader electorate. It’s a delicate dance but a necessary one. If they fail to adapt, Democrats risk unprecedented electoral losses and eroding a vibrant, two-party system. Their survival — and the country’s political health — depends on it.

Last week, CNN pundit Scott Jennings made a great point about why President Donald Trump seems to be overwhelming Democrats in so many ways. Jennings stated that Trump’s superpower is doing things that 80 percent of Americans support versus stuff that 20 percent support. Jennings added that Trump Derangement Syndrome forces Democrats to flail against Trump’s actions even if their flailing damages them.

Last week, Trump masterfully stepped in and blocked biological men from participating in women’s sports through an executive order. The picture of Trump at the White House surrounded by hundreds of young female athletes was iconic. Trump’s order was not only supported by 80 percent of the American people, but it also got the attention of those who may not follow politics closely but will vote against the political party that promotes men competing against women in female sports.

This week, Trump has signaled that he will sign an executive order rescinding the federal ban on plastic straws. This attack on plastic straws was triggered in 2011 by then 9-year Milo Cress, who called straw companies to determine how many plastic straws Americans use each day. He estimated from the conversations that Americans used 500 million straws a day. Then, it was extrapolated that that number would fill up 46,400 large school buses a year. These numbers are largely disputed, but what is overwhelmingly undisputable is that Americans want to use plastic rather than paper straws. Trump is just going to fulfill that desire.

How will Democrats react to this? They will say it’s a silly waste of time. They will say Trump has done nothing about the cost of straws, eggs, and everything else in grocery stores. They will say this is a reckless environmental move. They will flail and fail.

A new CBS poll conducted during Trump’s first 15 days in office shows 53 percent of Americans approved of what Trump has done so far. Just as importantly, 70 percent said he’s doing what he promised. The poll also indicated 63 percent of Americans view Trump as “energetic” and 69 percent viewed him as “tough.”

The next big issue for Trump will be an audit of the military budget. Trump’s audit of USAID and the Department of Education through Elon Musk’s DOGE has been pretty much popular. Even though Americans, especially Trump supporters, strongly support the military, they want the fraud and waste in that budget to be exposed. Remember the $640 toilet seat, $7,622 coffee maker, and $37 screws?

The battle that will probably be the most intense and imminent across the Delaware Valley will be the Trump administration’s enforcement of his executive orders around transgender issues. I predict that school districts like Central Bucks will resist, and we will see massive legal battles and possible withdrawal of federal funding. Resistance may appeal to some blocs of voters in school districts across our area, but in the end, they will lose. This is not an issue that people will change their minds about.

The policy that Trump has to be careful about is deporting illegal immigrants. Deportation of criminals here illegally is wildly popular. Polling indicates the deportation of those with a deportation order is popular. But deporting those who are unlawfully but have not committed crimes is a trickier issue.

Trump brands his executive orders as simply acknowledging common sense. Just in the past few days, prominent Democratic Delaware Sen. Chris Coons defended at length on CNN America’s “soft power” through USAID, such as spending $20 million on producing “Sesame Street” in Iraq. Chris Hayes, progressive MBNBC host on “Real Time with Bill Maher,” said Democrats could win by saying parents should have the right to get surgeries and puberty blockers for their very young children.

These guys must have been asleep during the last election.

When President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday banning biological males from girls sports, he was surrounded by future and former female athletes who cheered his actions.

But the response from elected officials in Pennsylvania was far more mixed.

The order directs federal agencies like the Justice and Education Departments to withhold federal tax dollars from institutions that violate Title IX which prohibits sex-based discrimination in the allocation of federal funds.

That includes discriminating against women by allowing biological males to play on their teams.

“My administration will not stand by and watch men beat and batter female athletes. We’re just not going to let it happen,” Trump said. “With this executive order, the war on women’s sports is over.”

Wednesday was National Girls and Women in Sports Day.

Tiffany Justice, co-founder of Moms for Liberty, was thrilled to be at the White House ceremony Wednesday to witness the president signing the executive order.

“It was really great,” said Justice. “We brought moms from all over the country with their daughters, who are athletes. It was just great to see the president surrounded by children. He truly is an amazing president for our children.”

The issue is “something that I became aware of when I was on the school board [in Florida] and then in the past four years,” said Justice. “I traveled around the country hearing so many stories from moms and dads who are so concerned about their girls playing on sports teams with boys, about gender confusion being introduced to the children in the classroom. So it was a great opportunity to be part of something really historic.”

“The president said he didn’t believe that he had to say that men should play on girls’ sports teams,” said Justice. “He doesn’t believe he had to even say that, right? It’s common sense. But now is the time to speak the truth and Donald Trump is a commonsense president.”

“We are putting every school receiving taxpayer dollars on notice: If you let men take over women’s sports teams or invade your locker rooms, you will be investigated for violations of Title IX and risk your federal funding,” Trump said.

The order said all federal funds “would be rescinded from educational programs that deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities.”

Sen. Dave McCormick (R-Pa.) supported the president’s action. “I will always fight to protect the integrity of women’s sports and defend the hard-fought gains for women under Title IX. President Trump’s executive order is just commonsense.”

Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Delaware) said on X, “Great to meet with @WomensSportsFdn to discuss how to forge a path forward in this administration so we can create equal opportunities and foster safer environments for girls and women to play sports.”

But she did not respond when asked to comment specifically about Trump’s order. Congresswomen Madeleine Dean (D-Montgomery) and Chrissy Houlahan did not respond to requests to comment. Nor did Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Bucks).

In the past, these Delaware Valley Democrats didn’t hesitate to express their support for males who identify as females being allowed to compete in girls sports. But polls have shifted.

A new poll from the left-leaning New York Times found 79 percent of Americans support the Trump policy. That includes 67 percent of Democrats. The same poll also found that, while voters put the economy, health care, and immigration at the top of their priorities, they believe the Democratic Party’s priorities are abortion, LGBT issues, and climate change.

Jamie Walker, a Bucks County parent, said, “I am so happy one of President Trump’s first priorities is to protect girls’ sports. Many women voted in this election because they wanted their daughters to have the same rights they had growing up and President Trump made that happen. He keeps his promises.”

Guy Ciarrocchi, a Chester County dad, longtime girls’ softball coach, and Republican commentator, said, “Women’s sports are a treasure—an opportunity for young girls to become extraordinary athletes, teammates and leaders. It’s a gift for those who play, and a gift those of us blessed to coach them. This gift should never be threatened due to political games—and never, ever be taken away.”

DVJournal asked Justice about codifying the executive order into a law passed by Congress, since another president could come along and change it.

“We’ll look to Congress to now pass a law,” said Justice, who spoke with Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.). Mace believes Congress will enact the necessary legislation.

Trump said he wants the policy to apply to the 2028 Summer Olympic Games in Los Angeles.

“President Trump said he’s going to work with [Secretary of State] Marco Rubio to ensure the IOC [International Olympic Committee] does not allow men to compete against women in America during the Olympics,” said Justice. “It’s incredible that we’re able to make the changes here in our own country that are going to affect the rest of the world.”

The past month has been a great time for the advancement of women in sports. The excellence of play in the Women’s NCAA Basketball Tournament and the rivalries of various players, teams, and coaches have become watercooler talk.

The game between LSU and Iowa drew 12.2 million viewers due to the stunning play of Iowa’s Caitlin Clark, who routinely launched shots from 30 feet away, and her rivalry with LSU superstar Angel Reese.

In addition to this, you had LSU Coach Kim Mulkey’s battle with The Washington Post and other media outlets over her coaching tactics. You also had multiple national championship winners, including South Carolina Coach Dawn Staley and her undefeated team.

Then, in the middle of this recognition of young women, a reporter asked Stalely a fundamental question about the future of women’s sports, and she threw her players under the progressive bus.

Dan Zaksheske of Outkick Sports asked Staley, “Coach, you just talked about what a massive weekend this was, obviously for women’s basketball and women’s sports in general. One of the major issues facing women’s sports now is the debate about the inclusion of transgender athletes who are biological males in women’s sports. I was wondering if you would tell me your position on that issue.”

Stalely responded, “Damn, you got deep on me. I think that if you are a woman, you should play. If you consider yourself a woman and want to play sports or vice versa, you should be able to play.”

Does Stalely believe this, or does she want to avoid pressure from people who claim you celebrate women in sports but also put them at a competitive disadvantage by having them face people who were born biological males?

Sport at the highest level is a game of inches or tenths of a second. That’s why a growing number of groups that govern women’s sports have placed increasing restrictions on those who are born biological males competing against women.

Riley Gaines, former University of Florida swimmer who famously competed against University of Pennsylvania transgender swimmer Lia Thomas, said, “Dawn Stalely knows perfectly well that men’s basketball is a totally different sport from women’s basketball. That’s obvious by the speed of the game, the size of the ball… the sheer amount of layups compared to dunks when a player gets a fast break.”

Gaines has started a campaign to urge great female athletes to speak out on the competitive advantages males have in most sports. Martina Navratilova has publicly asserted her views at times but then faced a backlash. I will be surprised if prominent female athletes respond to Coach Stalely’s statement because of the pressure they would face.

There will be more soon on this issue when the Biden administration makes some anticipated changes to Title IX that would stop state bans on transgender athletes in women’s sports. This change could be a lightning rod in the presidential election. Twenty-five states have passed bans on transgender athletes competing in women’s sports. This is not just a passing issue. And we will likely see the debate over it heat up with the upcoming Summer Olympics.

But aside from this controversy with Coach Stalely, we have seen the basketball greatness she has created with another undefeated season for her team. We’ve also seen the historic record-setting scoring and passing of Iowa’s Caitlin Clark. Hopefully, this attention to women’s basketball will reaffirm how much competitive sports can shape the characters of boys and girls and young men and women.

Sports develop teamwork, resilience, leadership, and physical fitness. This is special and must be carefully protected.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal