Ex-ESPN star shares stance on transgender athletes in girls' and women's sports
Former ESPN star Jeannine Edwards made her stance on transgender athletes competing in girls' and women's sports clear in an interview on Tuesday.
Edwards appeared on OutKick's "Don't @ Me with Dan Dakich" and said she couldn't believe there was a debate about the issue in sports.
"I cannot believe that we have even gotten to this point," Edwards said. "I mean 50 years of Title IX and all those decades of working up to that and getting to that point where women could have equal access, equal opportunity, equal benefits, but they need to be in their own niche. Because let's face it, men have 60% more muscle mass, they've got a heck of a lot more bone density and bone mass, larger lung capacity, larger oxygen consumption capacity. It doesn't matter whether you are taking hormones or not.
"It doesn't matter whether you say you identify as a female, I'm sorry your physiology of your body as a man is much different than that of the body of a woman. So, to me, this a no-brainer and I don't understand why some people on the left think that is a cause that is going to be a winner for them just as I don't believe that this immigration issue and deporting these criminal aliens, I don't think that's a winning issue for them either."
The New Jersey native was an ESPN and ABC Sports broadcaster from the mid-1990s to the mid-2010s.
A New York Times/Ipsos Survey released in January showed that the vast majority of Americans, including a majority of Democrats, don't think transgender athletes should be permitted to compete in women's sports.
Of the 2,128 people polled, 79% said biological males who identify as women should not be allowed to participate in women's sports.
Of the 1,025 people who identified as Democrats or leaning Democratic, 67% said transgender athletes should not be allowed to compete with women. Among 1,022 Republicans, that number was 94%.
Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
44 minutes ago
- USA Today
Justice Jackson: Supreme Court appears to favor 'monied interests' over ordinary citizens
Jackson's dissent in a case about air pollution rules came two weeks after she said the court may be unintentionally showing preferential treatment for the Trump administration. WASHINGTON − For the second time this month, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has complained that her colleagues are weighing the scales of justice differently depending on who is asking for help. 'This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens,' she wrote in her disagreement with the majority's June 20 decision that fuel producers can challenge California emissions standards under a federal air pollution law. Jackson's dissent came two weeks after she wrote that the court is sending a 'troubling message" that it's departing from basic legal standards for the Trump administration. The court's six conservatives include three appointed by President Donald Trump in his first term. In a case involving the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on June 6 said Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency could have complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be 'irreparably harmed' by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. The court's two other liberals – Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – also disagreed with the majority's opinion in the Trump case. But Kagan joined the conservatives June 20 in siding with the fuel producers. Jackson, however, said there were multiple reasons the court shouldn't have heard the case from among the thousands of appeals it receives. Those reasons include the fact that the change in administrations was likely to make the dispute go away. But by ruling in the fuel industry's favor, Jackson wrote, the court made it easier for others to challenge anti-pollution laws. 'And I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,' she said in her dissent. A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story Jackson said the court's 'remarkably lenient approach' to the fuel producers' challenge stands in contrast to the 'stern stance' it's taken in cases involving fair housing, desegrated schools or privacy concerns. In response, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the 7-2 opinion, pointed to other cases he said show the court is even handed. Those include its decision last year that anti-abortion doctors couldn't challenge the Food and Drug Administration's handling of a widely used abortion drug. More: Supreme Court revives suit against cop who fatally shot driver stopped for unpaid tolls 'In this case, as we have explained, this Court's recent standing precedents support the conclusion that the fuel producers have standing,' Kavanaugh wrote about the industry's ability to sue. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders,' he wrote.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
The gerontocracy gets a big test
SENIOR MOMENT — Keep an eye on the internal election in the House Democratic Caucus next week — it will have far bigger stakes than it might seem. The race to be the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has important near-term political ramifications since the victor will serve as the foil to Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) on a panel that has seemed as interested in investigating former President Joe Biden's age as current President Donald Trump. But there are also significant institutional implications. The contest will be a test of the future of the seniority system which has been a key feature of how Congress has governed itself for centuries. There are four Democratic contenders, two congressional veterans in their 70s and two congressional newcomers in their 40s. The old guard are 70-year-old Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) was first elected to Congress in 2001 and 76-year-old Rep Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.) who has spent 15 years on Capitol Hill in two stints nearly 25 years apart. The upstarts are 47-year-old Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) and 44-year-old Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), both of whom were first elected in 2023. The candidates will first try to make their case Monday to the House Democrats' Steering Committee, which will make a recommendation for the full caucus to ratify on Tuesday. At a time when, particularly among Democrats, there is a circular firing squad over issues surrounding age in the aftermath of Biden's presidency and failed reelection campaign, the idea of a system that benefits the old over the young, has drawn scorn in some quarters. After all, some progressives are still embittered over the fact that 74-year-old Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) beat out 35-year-old Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) for this position at the end of the last Congress, shortly after Connolly was diagnosed with cancer. Connolly, who was first elected in 2008, had a positive prognosis at the time. However, within months the cancer proved untreatable and he stepped down as the top Democrat on the committee in March. The Virginia Democrat died in May. Seniority, the concept that the longest tenured member of a committee should be its chair, is not written in any formal congressional rules. It's as much a custom whose strength has ebbed and flowed. It only rigidly determined who became a committee chair for a little over half a century —- the period from the overthrow of the iron fisted Speaker Joe Cannon in 1911 to the post Watergate era in 1974, when rebellious House Democrats ousted three veteran committee chairmen, the youngest of whom was 73. Since then, the seniority system has held increasingly less sway on Capitol Hill. Republicans have imposed term limits for committee chairman whereas Democrats have proved increasingly willing to oust older chairmen who are viewed as enfeebled or simply inadequate. Yet the notion of seniority still has a certain persuasive power in internal debates. As former Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-N.Y.) argued in an essay 60 years ago (written when he had served a mere 38 years in the House and was in his sixth year as chair of the House Judiciary Committee) argued 'the seniority criterion for selecting committee chairmen has the added virtue of being objective. It automatically eliminates the intrigues, deals, and compromises that characterize election campaigns.' It does, though, inherently favor those members in safe seats who face little opposition in primaries or general elections. In the mid 20th century, this made seniority a bugaboo among those reformers in the Democratic Party who wanted to push progressive legislation, particularly on civil rights. After all, the Democrats most likely to be easily reelected year after year were conservative white southerners. Now though, in the third decade of the 21st century, those members of the caucus who most benefit from it are members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who are often in safe districts, many of which are protected from gerrymandering as well by the Voting Rights Act. The question is whether seniority's appeal will continue to dwindle on Capitol Hill next week in the vote. It wouldn't be the first time that Democrats have rejected the committee's most senior member to lead it —- Lynch has already been passed over twice and is considered likely to be rejected yet again. But, of the two top contenders, the difference between passing over Lynch for a veteran like Mfume or newcomers like Garcia and Crockett is significant. House Democrats have elected a number of less tenured members of their conference to top committee slots in recent years but going with Garcia or Crockett, who are only in their second terms in Congress, would set a new benchmark for doing it and further mark the transformation in how congressional power is accumulated and held. After all, for generations, the surest path to power on Capitol Hill was a slow and steady apprenticeship before finally wielding a gavel. More and more, that's not the case. Instead, as Congress has become an increasingly enervated legislative body, the value of playing 'the inside game' has diminished. Seniority's value was that it served as the most objective available proxy to determine legislative gravitas. It was never exact but it was better than the alternatives. No alternative has since emerged for the imperfect system of simply relying on length of tenure. In a social media age, legislative gravitas isn't the only thing that matters anymore — cable news hits and viral posts, both of which are valuable currencies today, can be measured far more precisely. Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at nightly@ Or contact tonight's author at bjacobs@ or on X (formerly known as Twitter) at @Bencjacobs. What'd I Miss? — Judge orders pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil released from jail: A federal judge today ordered pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil released from immigration detention, more than three months after the Trump administration jailed him while attempting to deport him on foreign policy grounds. U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz determined that Khalil isn't a flight risk or a danger to the community, and lightly rebuked the government, calling its effort to continue seeking his detention 'highly, highly unusual.' — Parliamentarian nixes key pieces of Tim Scott's megabill proposal: The Senate parliamentarian ruled today that several key provisions in Banking Chair Tim Scott's proposed contribution to the GOP's 'big beautiful bill' violate the upper chamber's rules for the budget reconciliation process, according to Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Merkley's office. Scott's proposals to zero out funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, slash some Federal Reserve employees' pay, cut Treasury's Office of Financial Research and dissolve the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board are all ineligible to be included in a simple-majority budget reconciliation bill. — Majority of staff axed at Voice of America: The Trump administration today sent out termination notices to hundreds of employees at Voice of America. Included in that group are employees working for the network's Persian-language service who were called back from administrative leave just last week in the wake of Israel's attack on Iran, according to two people familiar with the decision. The move — which makes official what has long been expected since hundreds of contract employees got termination notices in early May — is a part of the Trump administration's sweeping target to downsize the government and remake America's role in the global order. — Supreme Court revives lawsuits seeking to hold Palestine Liberation Organization liable for terrorist attacks: The Supreme Court has revived lawsuits against the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority over terrorist attacks that killed and injured Americans. The justices today unanimously overturned a ruling from a federal appeals court that Congress violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process by enacting a 2019 law that expanded the jurisdiction of U.S. courts to hear terrorism-related suits against the PLO and PA. AROUND THE WORLD IN BREACH — Israel's actions in Gaza may have violated the terms of the country's agreement with the EU, the bloc's diplomatic corps found. 'On the basis of the assessments made by the independent international institutions … there are indications that Israel would be in breach of its human rights obligations under Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement,' the European External Action Service (EEAS) concluded, according to a leaked document seen by POLITICO. The EU's top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, was asked to lead a review after more than a dozen countries requested the European Commission look into the potential political and legal ramifications of the conflict. The EU-Israel Association Agreement establishes close relations between the bloc and the Middle Eastern nation, governing cooperation in key industries and bilateral trade. While tearing up the pact entirely would require unanimous support from all 27 EU member countries, four officials confirmed to POLITICO that interim measures, such as paring back trade ties, are being considered and could be passed by a qualified majority of countries. CRISIS MANAGEMENT — Ursula von der Leyen is facing the biggest challenge yet to her authority as European Commission president after political groups threatened to withdraw support over her decision to cancel climate-friendly legislation. 'We are on the brink of an institutional crisis,' Valérie Hayer, chair of the liberal Renew Europe group, told POLITICO. Von der Leyen is from the center-right European People's Party. Although it's the biggest group in the European Parliament, it relies on votes from the Socialists and liberals to get its way. The Commission's ability to introduce EU laws risks being blocked if the groups refuse to play ball. The Commission announced today that it was pulling the Green Claims directive ― a landmark law that would hold companies accountable for unfounded environmental claims ― even though it has already passed through many stages of the legislative process. That move, which the EPP group in Parliament requested the Commission make on Wednesday, was applauded by the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists and the far-right Patriots for Europe, the group of France's Marine Le Pen and Hungary's Victor Orbán. Nightly Number RADAR SWEEP TRASH OR TREASURE — For centuries, Londoners have combed the banks of the River Thames in search of ancient ceramics and medieval accessories. Known as mudlarkers, they are now documenting their hunts on TikTok. The activity, once done by just a few hobbyists, gained popularity during the pandemic as new enthusiasts began sharing their finds on social media. Now, longtime mudlarkers say they feel pushed out. The permit waitlist now sits at over 10,000 people for just 4,000 spots. Elizabeth Anne Brown reports on the hobby and its future for National Geographic. Parting Image Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
ESPN writer Brian Windhorst explains why Ace Bailey is a 'dangerous' prospect
Former Rutgers forward Ace Bailey is no longer considered a lock to be a top-five pick in the 2025 NBA draft after declining several workout requests, prompting ESPN senior writer Brian Windhorst to label him a "dangerous" prospect. Bailey, who has yet to visit any team, canceled a workout on Friday with the Philadelphia 76ers, who select third. The prevailing thought is that Bailey and his representation are declining workouts to ensure he lands with a specific team that can offer him a significant role to maximize his development. The 6-foot-8 standout has consistently been projected to be the third or fourth pick by most mock drafts. However, Bailey is falling down draft boards and could now be selected in the 3-8 range on Wednesday, which, as Windhorst explained Friday on "NBA Today," could be problematic for front offices. Every year, there is a dangerous prospect in the draft; he is a dangerous prospect. He is, obviously, incredibly talented: You draft him, it could be a grand slam. You pass on him, and somebody else drafts him, you might have it all over your face. If you draft him and it doesn't work out because of these concerns, that could get you fired. ... I think the team that gets him will be a team with a general manager who is very safe in his job, who says, 'Trust me. I believe in this player.' Bailey was a third-team All-Big Ten selection, averaging 17.6 points, 7.2 rebounds, 1.3 assists, 1.3 blocks and one steal on 34.6% shooting from 3-point range. He ranked ninth among all freshmen in points (527) and 10th in rebounds (215). The 18-year-old measured slightly smaller than expected at the draft combine last month, after Rutgers listed him at 6 feet, 10 inches. Teams were also displeased with his apparent lack of preparation and focus at the combine, factors that have also hurt his draft stock. Bailey is highly touted because of his size, scoring and instincts on both ends of the court. He still projects to be a potential franchise cornerstone at the next level, though he may not be selected as high as initially thought after a precarious predraft process.
