A shot of the gun, and they are off. A push, and the race begins once again.

The world has recently become more aware of the implications of government interference in the athletic world. Debates surrounding the transgender woman Lia Thomas’s inclusion in the NCAA Division 1 swim competition, has incited a push for legislation among conservative-aligning political leaders.

While not qualified for full force of implementation, executive orders have been signed with the aims of limiting transgender individuals from both recognition, as well as participation in the sector of sports.

Intrinsically tied, a contemporary phenomenon of topical depth is once again raw in our fluctuating country.

Integration of legislation in the realm of competitive events is hardly new, though now simply lent a more polarized limelight. Vastly varied in purpose, but essential in comparison, Title IX, within the Equal Amendments Act of 1972, protected women in the ability to compete in athletic competition.

Evidently, the specific efforts of each example differentiate crucially; Title IX posed legitimate professional and financial restrictions, if not applied. In recent executive orders, however, the trajectory of the goal is nonspecific to sports, and yet inextricably intertwined. 

Because Title IX has been used as a justification for the latter, however, it is critical to examine the trend here with nuance and an objective gaze. There is an inclination to bias, if not fallacy, within the title of the executive order, named “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.” 

Far from an inciting incident, but nonetheless incendiary, the rhetoric and dialogue, even to the name of this order, prods at a decade of the rapture of outrage. 

Such efforts have now taken a more moral stance, that of a perpetuation of discussion no longer tied to the sports world, but utilizing such still has justification. Rallying the troops, and carrying their cause on their shoulders, the parties line up for the game of the season. 

Sports are inherently physical and a contest within a fairly isolated world of a set of particular rules. Thus, a rude paradox arises, as the athletic world births a microcosm for societal issues. 

Thereby, such debate as to the roles of a voice of the athlete, when prosecution comes regardless of asymmetry, are pulled into question. Both the practical and indirect political ideologies directed at sports allow one to view opposition with a wide-eyed lens: Does the government deserve a place in the arena?

“I feel like the involvement of the government in sports should be limited if at all,” Swimmer, Violet Grau (12) said. “I think it is important to have rules and regulations, but I think those should come from sports associations and not the government.” 

This sentiment is shared among other peers at our school.

“I understand that it can be a big process, especially the Olympics, but it is not really up to the government to decide how to run {the sport organizations’} own {event},” Keron Bowman (11) said. “If there are two sides to a sport, then why does it matter who is on which team?”

However, other perspectives differ slightly, in the realm of government intervention. 

“I think the government can set the law, while the sports agencies enforce the laws,” Tennis player, Milo Weston (11), said.

In a modern society where life imitates art imitates life, there is an inherent incongruence in the way we discuss even the most menial.

How can we properly assess progress with a timer on the track? Records only perpetuate our zero-sum game. If we can be expected to rule under a leadership that dictates down to our own competitions, can we be assumed to play fair?

Are our organizations not already strong enough to stand on common ground? Rules are written and laid out fairly within the realm of the game. Need there be yet another overlord? 

Or, does this point out a further question and issue of politics leaking into everything, and thus such corporations may be afraid to take a stance one way or another?  Under the pressure of politicization, should we allow our organizations to combust. 

When did it become acceptable to have our executive branch play referee?

Perhaps not even a referee. For, while we are all shouting in the name of foul play, the goal posts move, and the sound of the crowd rings over the buzzer. 

Do we have such mistrust in the systems that already exist?

Executive orders are largely statements, bits of showmanship that display the agenda ahead. For your halftime performance, we surpass Congress, ladies and gentlemen!

Let’s all perform our acceptance speech in the middle of a run, minimize efforts and expound on our scores. Why question when the streamers are flying and we are having just so much fun? 

Legislation creeps towards the end zone. But ultimately?

It doesn’t matter who wins a game, we know who’s sponsoring.

A shot of the gun, and they are off. A push, and the race begins.