High school and collegiate sports are pillars of community life across the United States. They glue towns together in a spirit of solidarity, instilling qualities like sportsmanship, teamwork, discipline, and hard work in young people. Local sports teams can unite entire communities on game day, and coaches often become pivotal, even life-changing mentors, especially for student-athletes who lack positive role models at home. For some, hard work in their chosen sport can even lead to collegiate scholarships, providing educational opportunities that might otherwise be out of reach. But female sports are now in grave danger in New York, thanks to overzealous progressive officials and “Proposal One,” a state constitutional amendment on the ballot this November that would likely give males the right to participate on female sports teams.

One of us (Paula) knows firsthand the benefits of female sports and the harms that would come from allowing males to compete against women. Swimming was the one constant in Paula’s life that carried her through the ups and downs of high school, providing motivation and purpose to her every day. Like many serious athletes, Paula’s commitment to her sport caused her to sacrifice countless weekends, social events, and even Christmas holidays in pursuit of her goal—to swim on a Division I collegiate team. Her persistence paid off when she became a member of the University of Pennsylvania Women’s Swim Team.

Yet, Paula’s world was turned upside down in September 2021. At that time, UPenn permitted Lia Thomas, a post-pubescent male athlete, to participate as a member of the UPenn Women’s Swim Team. This individual, formerly known as “Will”, already held “personal best” times in every freestyle event that were faster than women’s world records. When competing for the women’s team, Thomas became the NCAA champion in the 500-yard freestyle, with female Olympians placing behind him. 

Not only did Thomas completely up-end the competitive aspect of the sport, but Paula was forced to share the same locker room 18 times per week. 

When women swimmers complained, the university dismissed them, attempting instead to “reeducate” them about their concerns over sharing a locker room with a man. UPenn was indifferent to the fact that Thomas was able to ruin fair competition in the sport. In pursuing “equal rights”, the university made Thomas’s rights more equal than the other members of the women’s team.

The ability of women to compete in sports was hard-won through social activism and legislation, namely, Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. Title IX ensured that schools receiving federal funds would provide equal opportunities for women and girls in athletics. In the five decades since, young girls have relied on sports to teach them perseverance, dedication, and sound time management—traits that will benefit them for life.

Today, however, female sports are at risk from those who claim that males have the right to join women’s teams and to participate in competition against women and girls. New York State Attorney General Letitia James, for example, sued Nassau County to challenge the county’s prohibition on males participating in women’s sporting events held at county facilities. Like at UPenn, fair competition must give way to an ideological agenda.

It comes as no surprise that James now supports Proposal One. If approved by the voters, it would add language to the state constitution that would bar discrimination principle based upon “gender identity” and “gender expression.” This language will be used to force schools and local town sports teams to follow the example of UPenn and require females to compete with and against males. It would become unconstitutional discrimination in this state to bar a male from a women’s locker room or bathroom if he wishes to use such facilities as a result of his “gender expression.”

Letitia James and other far-left New York politicians want to use Proposal One to implement through the state constitution the bizarre policies of academia. Do New Yorkers want to live in a state where a man can demand a right to play on a woman’s team and to use a women’s locker room merely by claiming a new “gender identity”?

Supporters have marketed Proposal One as a means to protect abortion rights by including “pregnancy outcomes” and “reproductive healthcare and autonomy” in the constitution’s list of protected characteristics. In reality, the amendment has nothing to do with abortion—the word “abortion” doesn’t even appear in Proposal One. It’s a Trojan Horse designed to introduce an unpopular and extreme agenda to impose policies that its supporters cannot achieve through normal political channels.

On November 5, voters face a choice: tell lawmakers to go back to the drawing board, or allow a new, open-ended constitutional provision to take away female sports as communities, athletes, and coaches have known them.

Paul Dreyer is a policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute, and Paula Scanlan is an ambassador with the Independent Women’s Voice, and former teammate of Lia Thomas on the UPenn women’s swim team.