It’s also too limiting. Congressman Greg Steube (R, FL) and Senator Tommy Tuberville (R, AL) are introducing a bicameral bill, The Protection of Women in Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, that would bar biological males from participating in Olympic events intended for women. Good idea, bad execution.
The bill defines a female as
an individual who has, had, will have—or would have, but for a developmental or genetic anomaly or historical accident—the reproductive system that at some point produces, transports, and utilizes eggs for fertilization.
The bill defines a male as
an individual who has, had, will have—or would have, but for a developmental or genetic anomaly or historical accident—the reproductive system that at some point produces, transports, and utilizes sperm for fertilization.
That’s way too complex, and it allows for too much weasel-wording interpretation. Much more straightforward definitions are these:
Female: a human with XX chromosomes.
Male: a human with XY chromosomes.
Maybe add inclusion as Female those with XXY chromosomes and Male those with XYY chromosomes. Those combinations are exceedingly rare, though, and likely would be better handled on a case-by-case basis.
The bill is too limiting, unless a companion bill also is put forward. There’s no room for transgender athletes in this or any other bills under consideration or in effect. That’s a deficiency that’s easy enough to correct other than politically. Simply amend Title IX to require Federally funded sports programs to include substantially equal programs for transgender athletes as a separate category, in the same way substantially equal programs currently are required for male and female athletes as separate categories. That also would obviate the need to play games with whether an athlete is a member of a particular sex simply on that athlete’s say-so.