How soon we forget that segregation and Jim Crow was violent as hell. Let’s tell the truth with love and with clarity.Comparing sex-based sports bo
How soon we forget that segregation and Jim Crow was violent as hell.
Let’s tell the truth with love and with clarity.
Comparing sex-based sports boundaries to Jim Crow segregation is not only historically inaccurate, it is deeply offensive to the memory of the Black girls and women who lived—and died—under real racial apartheid.
So let’s break it down. Here are 12 reasons why keeping girls’ sports for girls is NOT like segregation—and never will be.
1. Jim Crow was based on race—a made-up hierarchy rooted in white supremacy.
Sex-based sports categories are based on biology—not superiority. They exist to ensure fairness, not exclusion. That’s not oppression. That’s structure.
2. Segregation was created to deny Black people access.
Girls’ sports were created because girls were historically denied the chance to play.
Letting boys compete against girls doesn’t expand freedom—it reverses progress.
3. Black girls were shut out of both white schools and boys’ sports.
Remember: Title IX was born because girls—especially Black girls—were told we didn’t belong. The fight was to gain access, not to erase the category altogether.
4. Jim Crow was about power and dehumanization.
Sex-based sports categories are about fairness, safety, and development.
They don’t say one group is “better”—they acknowledge physical realities. And real inclusion requires acknowledging reality.
5. Jim Crow was involuntary.
Girls are not being “separated” against their will. They’re asking for their own space to compete, grow, and shine—free from unfair advantages or pressure to perform against male-bodied athletes.
6. Black people didn’t choose segregation.
But when girls advocate for boundaries in sport, they are exercising agency—and defending hard-won access. That’s not oppression. That’s wisdom.
7. Jim Crow excluded based on skin color, not competitive advantage.
Sex-based sports exist because male bodies and female bodies develop differently, especially after puberty. This isn’t a value judgment. It’s a fact that affects outcomes.
8. Under Jim Crow, one group dominated while the other suffered.
We’ve seen what happens when boys compete against girls: girls lose scholarships, titles, and opportunities. That’s not progress. That’s a repeat of history where girls get pushed to the back.
9. Comparing girls defending their space to segregation erases real Black history.
It’s disrespectful to civil rights icons like Rosa Parks, Ruby Bridges, and Mamie Till-Mobley to use their suffering to silence girls who are simply asking for fairness.
10. Jim Crow required lies to uphold it.
So does this false comparison.
It asks us to pretend biology isn’t real, that safety doesn’t matter, and that protecting girls is hateful.
That’s not liberation—it’s gaslighting.
11. There is no “separate but equal” in sports—without boundaries, girls just lose.
Letting boys compete in girls’ categories doesn’t create a “shared space.” It creates dominance. Because biology matters in speed, strength, and injury risk.
12. Girls—especially Black girls—deserve truth, fairness, and protection.
Using the language of racism to guilt people out of protecting girls is not justice. It’s manipulation.
Black girls don’t need fewer boundaries. They need more protection, more support, more truth-telling.
Protecting Girls Isn’t Prejudice—It’s Love
We will not allow the language of our ancestors’ suffering to be misused against our daughters.
Defending sex-based protections is not segregation. It is not hate. It is not discrimination.
It is wisdom.
It is boundary.
It is survival.
Let girls have space. Let girls have fairness. Let girls have sports.
In the name of Rosa’s Children, we say:
We protect what we’ve fought for. We protect who we love.
More adult women should locate some shame within themselves for now trying to stop girls from having sports to themselves just like the boys. How could you leave the girls with nothing while the boys have everything?
COMMENTS