Senator Chris Murphy dodges girls’ sports fairness question with stunning response: “I don’t have girls”—exposing how Democrat politicians abandon common sense and Title IX protections when their progressive ideology demands it.
At a Glance
- Senator Chris Murphy avoided directly addressing fairness concerns about biological males competing in girls’ sports by saying “I don’t have girls”
- Murphy’s dismissive response undermines Title IX protections designed to ensure fair athletic opportunities for women and girls
- Despite claiming “lots of parents of girls” in Connecticut don’t see a problem, Murphy ignores widespread parental concerns about competitive fairness
- Murphy characterized Republican opposition to transgender athletes in female sports as “bullying vulnerable kids” and a “distraction”
- Critics argue Murphy’s stance prioritizes progressive ideology over biological reality and women’s rights
Murphy’s Shocking Dodge on Girls’ Sports Question
When confronted with a straightforward question about fairness in girls’ sports during his appearance on Ross Douthat’s podcast, Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) offered perhaps the most revealing non-answer in recent political memory. Rather than addressing the competitive concerns of allowing biological males to compete against girls, Murphy simply stated, “I don’t have girls.” The dismissive response has infuriated parents across the political spectrum who believe biological differences matter in athletic competition, regardless of whether a politician personally has daughters or not.
After his initial dodge, Murphy claimed that “lots of parents of girls” in Connecticut don’t see a problem with biological males competing in female sports categories. This assertion contradicts the experiences of numerous female athletes who have lost competitions, scholarships, and opportunities when competing against transgender athletes who maintain significant physiological advantages. Murphy eventually clarified his position, stating: “Yes, my conclusion is that I would support those athletes being able to participate in my community.”
Undermining Title IX Protections
Murphy’s stance appears to directly contradict the foundational principles of Title IX, the landmark 1972 legislation that ensured fair competitive opportunities for women and girls in education and athletics. For decades, Title IX has guaranteed female-only sports teams and facilities, recognizing the biological differences that create competitive disparities between males and females. By supporting policies that allow biological males to compete in girls’ sports, critics argue Murphy is effectively dismantling the very protections Title IX was designed to provide.
“This isn’t an effort to solve a problem. This whole obsession with transgender kids from the right-wing is just about picking on vulnerable kids so that adults can make themselves feel big. Bullying and harassing kids because it makes adults feel powerful. As far as I’m concerned, this whole effort is shameful,” Murphy claimed in a statement opposing a Republican resolution on the issue.
Deflection Strategy: Claiming Republicans Are Distracting From Their “Real Agenda”
Rather than engaging with the substantive concerns about competitive fairness, Murphy has repeatedly characterized the debate as a Republican distraction tactic. In a lengthy statement, he claimed: “[T]he Republican party’s platform today is maybe the most unpopular agenda of any major political party in recent memory. Ban abortion, cut taxes for corporations and millionaires, ban books, loosen gun laws. Nobody wants any of that. So, what do you do if the things you actually want to do, if you achieve power, are super, super unpopular? You distract them with giant, gross lies.”
“I think every state and every school district should decide these questions for themselves. I don’t think the federal government should get involved. But as a parent personally, I celebrate those few transgender kids who often spend their entire adolescence being shamed or marginalized by the kind of small people who push resolutions like this,” Murphy stated, characterizing parents concerned about fairness as “small people.”
The Broader Implications
Murphy’s position has become emblematic of a larger progressive stance that prioritizes gender identity over biological reality in athletic competition. While Murphy advocates for local control of these decisions, he simultaneously dismisses legitimate concerns as fear-mongering and bigotry. For many parents watching this debate unfold, the “I don’t have girls” comment represents more than just an evasive political response—it symbolizes an abandonment of common-sense protections for female athletes in favor of ideological conformity, regardless of the competitive consequences.
Despite Murphy’s claims that these issues affect only a tiny minority of athletes, the policy implications extend to every female competitor. As more states and athletic organizations grapple with these questions, Murphy’s dismissive approach highlights how some politicians seem willing to sacrifice fair competition for girls on the altar of progressive ideology, even when they don’t personally have to witness their own daughters losing opportunities as a result.
