Lawmakers in Maryland sparred last week over proposed legislation that would ban transgender girls from competing in girls’ sports at the varsity and junior varsity high school levels. During a February 5 hearing on HB 63 before the state General Assembly’s Ways and Means Committee, several lawmakers on both sides of the aisle pressed the bill’s sponsor, Del. Kathy Szeliga (R), on how the law would be enforced.

In her opening remarks, Szeliga seemed to anticipate that line of questioning.

---

---

“There’s some people who are concerned about the enforcement of this. Well, we enforce all kinds of things in high school sports, as you know,” she said. “Before an athlete can compete in high school sports, they have to have a physical. And on that physical — and you’ll find that in my testimony — the pediatrician, the nurse practitioner gives a full body physical to that athlete. So, there would be, of course, dignity and no questions, but just like we look at age and other things when they’re questioned…it’s done in the same way. Just pull the form out, look at the form, and we’ll determine is it a boy or is it a girl.”

However, as Del. Joe Vogel (D) noted, the bill currently contains no enforcement language.

Vogel questioned Szeliga about a hypothetical scenario in which a student-athlete’s gender might be questioned during a competition. “How is the gender of that student determined to address that dispute?” Vogel asked.

Szeliga responded that coaches would have access to students’ medical records, which would determine their eligibility to participate. “So, again, before an athlete can play on a team, they have a physical. It would be handled with the utmost respect and dignity,” Szeliga said, despite the fact that HB 63 contains no language about student physical exams or what forms would be required to determine eligibility.

Vogel pressed Szeliga on the specific forms that would be used to determine a student athlete’s sex assigned at birth, which, he noted, would have to be updated to include questions about gender and sex assigned at birth by local school districts. Szeliga responded by citing forms that already include questions about students’ menstrual cycles.

“Your suggestion seems to be something around keeping the menstrual history of students on record… we’ve actually seen that in other states,” Vogel said. He went on to cite invasive proposals to enforce other states’ trans sports bans, including in Ohio, where lawmakers proposed that in instances where a student athlete’s gender was questioned, the student should undergo “internal and external genital exams.”

“So, menstrual history, that’s one option. The other option around genital exams,” Vogel continued. “Are we having athletes take off their clothing? Who is participating in these genital exams? Is it the referee? If so, what sort of credential does the referee have to participate in the genital exam of a high school athlete? Are both coaches involved?”

While Szeliga insisted that genital exams would not happen under her proposed law, Vogel reiterated that, as written, HB 63 contains no guidance on how it should be enforced.

“There is no enforcement mechanism in this bill. The way that we are suggesting this policy be implemented is not how it will be implemented in real life,” he insisted. “What we’re doing with this bill is creating a system in the state of Maryland where the privacy and fairness of every single student, of every athlete in our state, will be violated, and that’s why I’m deeply concerned about this bill.”

Notably, throughout her testimony, Szeliga cited what she described as biological differences between boys and girls to justify the necessity of HB 63, appearing to disregard entirely the possibility that transgender girls playing high school sports may have received hormone replacement therapy (which remains legal for trans youth in Maryland) as part of their gender-affirming care.

Szeliga could not cite a single peer-reviewed study when questioned by Del. Julie Palakovich Carr (D). When Palakovich Carr, who holds a master’s degree in biology, cited a recent survey of research comparing the physical fitness of transgender women and cisgender women published by The British Journal of Sports Medicine, which found no significant differences in physical fitness metrics between cis and trans women athletes, Szeliga simply responded that she should compare track and field records for cisgender boys and girls.  

“Boys are faster, they’re quicker, they jump higher, and, you know, that’s just the facts,” Szeliga argued, again, completely disregarding the differences between cisgender boys and trans girls who have received gender-affirming care.

Palakovich Carr’s questioning also produced one of the hearing’s most telling moments. The Democrat asked Szeliga whether, under the proposed law, cisgender girls with naturally higher testosterone levels should be banned from playing girls’ sports “because they might have greater athletic advantage.”

“If they’re a woman, which it clearly sounds like they have the chromosomes of a woman, no. Why would they be? We’re not testing for testosterone,” Szeliga responded, essentially admitting that the bill is specifically about excluding transgender girls rather than competitive athletic advantages.