Recent High School Volleyball Team Forfeiture Reminds Us That Boys Are Still Playing In Girls' Sports

Last weekend, Riverside Poly High School’s girls’ team forfeited a match against Jurupa Valley’s transgender athlete, highlighting California’s controversial policy.

⏱️ 3.5 minute read

A Maelstrom of Injustice

California’s political landscape is a maelstrom, with countless issues vying for attention. All eyes this week are on Gavin Newsom’s divisive mid-decade partisan redistricting play. However, one critical matter must not be ignored: biological males are still allowed to compete in girls’ sports, use their locker rooms, and dominate their spaces. Despite ongoing litigation, every day this policy persists disrespects, humiliates, and endangers female athletes.

Last weekend, Riverside Poly High School’s girls’ volleyball team forfeited a match against Jurupa Valley High School, whose roster includes transgender athlete AB Hernandez, a biological male. This isn’t Hernandez’s first controversy, as her Spring CIF track season sparked outrage. “The decision was not about hatred… It’s about women needing to play against other women,” a father told the New York Post, emphasizing equity. A mother prioritized safety, also in the Post, citing Payton McNabb’s 2022 brain injury from a trans athlete’s spike: “I’m not willing to risk her safety because [Hernandez] wants to play on a girls’ team.”

Hernandez’s CIF Track Firestorm

Hernandez dominated girls’ high jump, long jump, and triple jump at the May 10 CIF qualifiers in Yorba Linda, advancing amid protests with “No boys in girls’ sports!” banners. At the May 24-25 state finals, she won high jump and triple jump, sharing podiums due to a CIF rule change prompted by a U.S. Department of Education warning letter and federal pressure, and praised by Governor Newsom, which I wrote about at the time. Protests escalated, with an LGBTQ protester arrested and a plane flying a banner overhead.

Broader Resistance and Federal Pushback

State Senator Sabrina Cervantes (D-Corona) handed Hernandez a Senate certificate a couple of weeks ago, doubling down on the stubborn defiance of California’s radical left leaders. “California’s Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation thought they could ignore federal law,” I wrote. On July 9, the DOJ sued both, alleging Title IX violations despite Trump’s February executive order. The lawsuit, ongoing after California ignored a June compliance deadline, demands biology-based rules. Kern County’s ban this month on trans athletes, a Merced Christian school’s November forfeit, and San Jose State’s trans volleyball player lawsuits are in line with my argument: “Allowing biologically male athletes to compete in women’s categories isn’t inclusive; it’s prejudicial.”

Biology vs. Ideological Mandates

Biological males keep their muscle mass, bone density, and strength even after hormone therapy, studies show, robbing female athletes of scholarships and wins. “When biological males consistently dominate women’s sports, it will inevitably discourage biological females from participating,” I argued in my column Six Reasons Biological Males Should Not Be Competing In Women’s Sports. A Public Policy Institute of California poll shows 65% of Californians, including 71% of school parents, back biology-based teams. State policies push ideological nonsense over science, bloating government overreach, and gutting Title IX’s protections.

So, Does It Matter?

Governor Newsom’s praise for a CIF “pilot” rule is a dodge: “It’s not leadership; it’s Newsom pandering to the hardcore liberal left’s bizarre social engineering,” I have said. “What this is about is a difference between biological girls and biological boys,” said Amanda Vickers, to the New York Post. With the DOJ lawsuit ongoing, Newsom’s inaction risks federal funds while female athletes suffer. But ersatz President Gavin Newsom is now focused on other areas, like redistricting, and is hoping that this issue stays in the background. In mid-June, Newsom pivoted his political strategy to be the “Anti-Trump,” which does not bode well for bringing common sense to bear on this issue, if only because President Trump is on the side of common sense here.