International Powerlifting Federation Changes Its Rules Regarding Men From Competing in the Women's Division

The International Powerlifting Federation changed its rules about men competing in the women's division as soon as what everyone expected would happen, did happen. Specifically, a man began winning every "woman's" contest and setting new powerlifting records for "women."

The International Powerlifting Federation has changed its policy seemingly in response to outrage generated by a male dominating female competitions, breaking records along the way.

Male competitor Anne Andres, 40, recently defeated all female competitors at the Canadian Powerlifting Union's 2023 Western Canadian Championship by lifting a combined score of 1,317 pounds, beating the second-place finisher by more than 450 pounds.

He must have just "wanted it more" than his female victim.

Andres, who claims to have transitioned to a female "20 years ago," has broken multiple records since identifying as a female powerlifter in 2020, including in the most recent competition, Breitbart reported.

Following the fiasco, female competitive powerlifter April Hutchinson spoke out against the record-breaking performance by Andres.

"It's been very disheartening," she said. "Athletes have been chasing that for years. And we're talking we're talking top athletes who have been training and training and training."

"My boyfriend could basically walk in tomorrow, identify as a female, compete, and then the next day, go back to being a man again. No proof, no ID required, just basically going on how you feel that day or whatever gender you want to it," Hutchinson added.

Just a week later, it seemed the IPF at least somewhat heard the athletes, as several females reportedly skipped out on the competition due to Andres' inclusion.

Note that the did not ban men from beating the shit out of women in "women's" powerlifting, of course. That would be Transphobic.

Instead, they're merely demanding that men jump through a couple of hoops before destroying women in women's sports.

The IPF policy appears to prioritize testosterone levels, requiring interval testing and laboratory testing upon request. The policy also requires transgender athletes to declare their "gender identity" before competing and provide a "valid passport bearing a female gender."

"The declaration cannot be changed, for competition purposes, for a minimum of four years," it also stated. The national or regional federation would be suspended from the governing body until it follows policy.

Relatedly, a Hawaiian Judge had enjoined Georgia's law outlawing trans "therapy" for children from taking effect, issuing a temporary injunction claiming that the law would likely be found unconstitutional at trial. This injunction had been in place for a year.

An eleventh circuit panel just reviewed this Hawaiian judge's work and declared that he was simply making up "law" as it pleased him.

The three judges who overturned the lower judge's ruling were Trump appointees. Unfortunately, the Hawaiian judge who issued this ruling was also a Trump appointee.

On Monday afternoon, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Alabama's 2022 law making "[p]rescribing or administering" hormone therapy to a minor a felony is likely constitutional.

In so doing, the appeals court tossed out a district court's preliminary injunction that had been barring enforcement of the law for more than a year. Monday's decision, then, allows the law to take effect.

The 59-page ruling from a three-Trump-appointee panel followed full briefing, as well as oral argument in November 2022, on Alabama's appeal of a preliminary injunction that had been entered against the state by the district court. In its injunction, the district court halted enforcement of of the parts of the law that criminalized "[p]rescribing or administering" puberty blockers or hormones (Sections 4(a)(1)--(3) of the Alabama law) as part of medical treatment addressing gender dysphoria.

The appeals court ultimately held that the district court's preliminary injunction was "an abuse of discretion," because, in Judge Barbara Lagoa's opinion for the appeals court, the district court used the wrong standards for reviewing the case. She concluded for the court Alabama "is exceedingly likely to satisfy" what the appeals court held was the correct standard -- rational basis.

Applying that extremely relaxed standard, the appeals court overturned the district court ruling on both of its stated grounds for issuing the injunction.

U.S. District Judge Liles Burke, another Trump appointee, had granted a preliminary injunction in May 2022 after finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their lawsuit on two grounds -- both of which several other courts have since also found justify injunctions against other states' similar laws.

posted by Ace at 04:45 PM

| Access Comments