Minnesotastan: Where it's unlawful to have female-only sports

Or: I try to read the law. Fight me if I got it wrong

Minnesota Fencing sent out this statement via social media, saying that rather than complying with the national organization’s recent policy decision to protect a female-only women’s division, the Minnesota organization would host only mixed sex tournaments. Minnesota Fencing, like the Minnesota State High School League and other Minnesota sports organizations, claim that the ironically named Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) protects gender identity and that therefore it’s actually unlawful to have female-only sports or spaces. The fact that sex is also a protected characteristic of the MHRA doesn’t seem to matter to Minnesota Fencing.

The MHRA being the apparent heart and soul of Minnesotastan’s justification for the violation women’s sex-based rights, it behooves a person (me) to wade into clauses and subclauses of that document. The main course has, over the years, become inclusive to the point of meaninglessness:

The state law prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, public services, education, credit, and business based on protected class, such as: race, religion, disability, national origin, sex, marital status, familial status, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

But further down under Exemptions to Unfair Discriminatory Practices on Education one finds a specific exemption for Athletic Teams:

Subd. 2.Athletic teams. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter or any law to the contrary, it is not an unfair discriminatory practice for an educational institution or a public service to operate or sponsor separate athletic teams and activities for members of each sex or to restrict membership on an athletic team to participants of one sex, if this separation or restriction meets the requirements of section 121A.04.

And another one, equally unreadable, Exemption based on public accommodation:

Subdivision 1.Restrooms, locker rooms, and similar places. The provisions of section 363A.11 relating to sex, shall not apply to such facilities as restrooms, locker rooms, and other similar places. The provisions of section 363A.11 do not apply to employees or volunteers of a nonpublic service organization whose primary function is providing occasional services to minors, such as youth sports organizations, scouting organizations, boys' or girls' clubs, programs providing friends, counselors, or role models for minors, youth theater, dance, music or artistic organizations, agricultural organizations for minors, and other youth organizations, with respect to qualifications based on sexual orientation.

Subd. 2.Athletic team, program, or event.The provisions of section 363A.11 relating to sex, do not apply to restricting membership on an athletic team or in a program or event to participants of one sex if the restriction is necessary to preserve the unique character of the team, program, or event and it would not substantially reduce comparable athletic opportunities for the other sex.

As a longtime English speaker, certain key words jumped out at me—exemption, athletic teams, one sex. And yet, you’ve got every sports organization in the state swearing on a vat of lutefisk that having a female-only category would be heresy, akin to selling your mother. You cannot swing a cat without hitting a lawyer, but when you want one… At any rate, and I think that is the problem, I was drowning in legalese when I thought of ChatGPT. So, I posed the question to my AI friend:

In understandable English, what does this exemption clause to the MN Human Rights Act say: Subd. 2.Athletic teams. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter or any law to the contrary, it is not an unfair discriminatory practice for an educational institution or a public service to operate or sponsor separate athletic teams and activities for members of each sex or to restrict membership on an athletic team to participants of one sex, if this separation or restriction meets the requirements of section 121A.04.

ChatGPT said:

Sure—that clause essentially means this:

Under Minnesota's Human Rights Act, it’s not considered discriminatory for schools or public services to run or sponsor separate sports teams for males and females, or to limit a team to just one sex, as long as it aligns with the rules laid out in Minnesota Statute § 121A.04 FindlawMN Revisor's Office.

What does § 121A.04 require? Here’s the simplified breakdown:

• Equal opportunity is key: Schools must generally give both sexes fair opportunities to participate in sports. They must consider things like interest levels, types of sports offered, budgets, practice time, facilities, coaching, and funding MN Revisor's Office+1.

• But there are exceptions: For higher grade levels (7th grade and above or ages 12+), it’s permissible to limit team membership to one sex—but only if the sex in question has historically faced limitations in athletic opportunities MN Revisor's Office+1.

• For younger children (6th grade and under), teams generally should not be sex-restricted—unless there’s a proven interest from the underrepresented sex and their opportunities have been limited MN Revisor's Office+1.

• Equally treated separate teams: If there are two teams in the same sport—say, boys and girls—they must receive substantially equal budgets and resources per participant. However, they’re not required to practice together MN Revisor's Office+1.

• Try‑outs allowed: When two teams exist, it's permissible to restrict one to a sex with previously limited opportunities—but members of the other sex must still be allowed to try out for it MN Revisor's Office+1.

• Wrestling exception: Wrestling teams can be single-sex even if that sex hasn't historically been restricted—but each sex must still be offered programs if there’s interest MN Revisor's Office+1.

---

In plain English: Schools in Minnesota can have separate sports teams for boys and girls—or limit a team to one sex—if and only if it’s done fairly and in compliance with the state’s rules for equal opportunity in athletics. That means ensuring both sexes have equitable access, resources, and chances to participate, and meeting additional criteria around demonstrated interest and past limitations on opportunities. Applicable Conditions and MHRA Requirements

The MHRA permits single-sex teams only if:

• They’re for participants grade 7 or older (or age 12+),

• AND the sex in question has historically had fewer athletic opportunities,

• AND a demonstrated interest exists,

• AND both teams receive substantially equal treatment and resources if separate teams exist MN Revisor's Office+1.

If MSHSL or Minnesota Fencing determines that one of these criteria isn’t met—for instance, maybe they view fencing as not historically limiting female opportunities, or they see no demonstrated interest—they may conclude the exemption doesn’t apply.

******************************************************************************************************

Well thank you ChatGPT. According to those caveats, Minnesota Fencing is free to have a female-only category/tournament. THEY JUST DON’T WANT TO. THEY HAVE INVENTED A JUSTIFICATION TO VIOLATE WOMEN’S RIGHTS FOR DECADES IN PLAIN SIGHT. Minnesota Fencing, the Minnesota State High School League, St. Paul Park and Rec, Three Rivers Park District, Attorney General Keith Ellison—they’re all pretending that the MHRA is preventing them from having female-only sports and locker rooms in Minnesota. They’ve made an Ole and Lena joke* out of women’s rights.

I’m not a lawyer, and neither is ChatGPT. So, fight me. Prove me wrong. Show me where I’ve grossly misinterpreted these exemptions. And if you do, Part B is to explain why any state, especially one as smug and self-righteous as Minnesota, should proudly advocate for a law that subjugates half the population to prioritize the unverifiable beliefs of a tiny population of men.

*The Ole and Lena joke: Ole was sitting with his fellow construction workers on a skyscraper beam at lunchtime. The first worker said, “If this is peanut butter, I’m going to jump.” He opened his lunchbox, it was peanut butter, and he jumped. The second worker said, “If this is baloney, I’m going to jump.” He opened his lunchbox, it was baloney, and he jumped. Ole said, “If this is tuna fish, I’m going to jump.” He opened his lunchbox, it was tuna fish, and he jumped. Later the grieving wives were commiserating. “I didn’t know he didn’t like peanut butter,” said the first wife. “I didn’t know he didn’t like baloney,” said the second wife. Lena said, “Ole made his own lunch.”