Massachusetts House Dems Pass Bill That Could Ban Trans Students From Sports; Senate Next

Democrats used a procedural motion to water the sports ban down rather than kill it outright out of fear of taking a vote and putting members on record.

Photo by My Profit Tutor on Unsplash

On Wednesday, the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed a $1.3 billion budget bill that included a transgender sports ban—the first such measure to pass any legislative chamber in a blue state. Rather than voting to strike down the provision, Democrats advanced an amendment allowing the ban to go into effect only after its impacts are studied. Party leaders framed the move as a win for transgender rights, claiming the study would never materialize and the ban was effectively dead. But critics argue the provision puts transgender people at risk if political winds shift or future administrations decide to act on the study. Discussions suggest Democrats chose the procedural maneuver to shield members in swing districts from casting a vote in support of transgender rights.

The sports ban was originally proposed by State Representative John Gaskey, who filed the following amendment:

No public school shall allow a male student athlete to participate on a girls’ sports team nor shall a public school allow a female athlete to participate on a boys sports team.

Any school found not in compliance shall forfeit all games where an athlete of the opposite sex participated. The Superior Court shall have available all remedies at law or in equity. A party who brings an action to enforce this section and prevails shall be entitled to his or her costs and attorney’s fees.

Rather than vote to kill the amendment outright, Democratic Representative Ken Gordon pushed a further amendment, stating “It is a matter of concern to residents of the Commonwealth who have expressed concern from both sides of the issue, and the matter deserves a public hearing.” The amendment explicitly allows the original sports ban to take effect after its impacts are studied:

Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, the provisions of this section shall not take effect until such time as: (i) the department of elementary and secondary education has analyzed the policy for student athletes and their families in the commonwealth, including, but not limited to, a review of: any safeguards that may alleviate safety concerns related to physical health, and the impacts on the education and extracurricular activities of elementary and secondary students at public schools in the commonwealth, including, but not limited to, behavioral and physical health impacts related to this section, anticipated changes to the well-being of said students and the current practice of other states; (ii) the department has furnished a report of the analysis pursuant to clause (i); and (iii) legislation necessary to carry out any recommendations has been filed and enacted pursuant to Part 2, Chap. 1, Sec. 1, Art. II of the Constitution.

The bill then passed the Massachusetts House of Representatives. In the immediate aftermath, activists were stunned, with several contacting their representatives to ask how the language made it into the bill. Many were told it was a “strategic decision to kill it through a procedural move”—a claim that does not align with the actual language passed. If a study were ever conducted, the provision allows for a transgender sports ban to take effect. It also raises the question as to why such a procedural move that risks transgender rights would be chosen over a direct vote that would block the ban with no ambiguity. When asked why Democrats did not simply take such a vote vote to strike the ban entirely, most representatives declined to respond.

New information emerged late Thursday night during discussions with Democratic Representative Mike Connolly, who was pressed on the lack of a vote to strike the sports ban. Connolly initially stated that taking such a vote “would not have advanced the interests of trans people,” and noted that Democrats did not want to proceed without “coordinating strategy with swing district Reps,” suggesting the decision to pass the sports ban language was made to protect vulnerable Democrats. When pressed further, Connolly revealed that the amendment did not receive a vote because of concerns about taking a vote “where the final tally — and the implications of that tally — are unknown,” implying that Democrats may have supported the sports ban outright had it come to a vote.

This outcome is deeply troubling. Sports bans have been introduced in nearly every state, and across the country—even in deep-red legislatures—Democrats have consistently voted in unified opposition. Earlier this year, every single Democrat in Montana, a state with a Republican trifecta, stood against such a ban and were unafraid of taking that vote. In contrast, Massachusetts Democrats, rather than taking a public vote to defend transgender youth, chose to shield their vulnerable members by advancing a study provision that leaves the door open to future enforcement. Even if there is no immediate plan to pursue the study, the provision now exists—ready to be weaponized should the political winds shift or federal pressure from a second Trump administration mount. That Democrats in a deep-blue state like Massachusetts were unwilling to take a clear stand in defense of their transgender constituents should be a wake-up call to advocates everywhere: the fight for transgender rights isn’t confined to red states. It is a battle that must be waged in every state, every legislature, and every party.

If you live in Massachusetts, you can find your representative and senator here. The bill will now move to the Senate, where advocates hope it can be stopped and the sports ban language can be removed entirely, rather than replaced with a procedural study amendment that places trans people at risk.