“Athlete/Entrepreneur Jen Sey Launches Apparel Line to ‘Defend’ Women’s Spaces”
Jennifer Sey, the well-known former gymnast who produced the documentary Athlete A, about the molestation of hundreds of girls by Olympics Trainer/osteopath Larry Nasser, as well as being about Nasser’s trial and incarceration, has arrived at a current battle. She is concerned about what she sees as the devaluation of women’s sports, and the degradation of girls’ and women’s privacy and even safety, by the entry into female sports and changing areas, of biological males who identify as female. Sey presents a sensible solution to the tortured issue of whether or not biological males should compete in women’s sports, by proposing an “open category” for sporting events in which people of whatever gender can choose to participate.
Sey gets into the details of how dangerous it can be for female athletes when they box, or play football, or even play soccer or basketball, against biological males: some girls are seriously injured by doing so. As a survivor of physical and emotional abuse, she elucidates how traumatic it is for young girls, let alone for female abuse survivors, to feel unsafe and exposed in changing areas in which mature biological males are sharing facilities. Sey also explores the legal implications of Title 7, which is supposed to make sure that women’s sports are treated equally to men’s, and she argues that with males competing “as women”, this law is being violated.
Sey goes into detail about the tyranny of San Francisco’s “lockdown” years. In her recounting, SF was indeed the most repressive of all US cities. She shares that the bullying and petty Stalinism of the “lockdown” years were also part of her lifelong journey fighting against coercion, a journey that she believes has found new expression in her pro-women, pro-women’s sports clothing line, XX-XY.
https://rumble.com/embed/v4ov1eo/?pub=mbdkr
Please Support Our Sponsors
The Wellness Company: https://dailyclouthealth.com
Use code OUTSPOKEN for 10% off!
From American author, filmmaker, business executive, and retired artistic gymnast Jen Sey:
“I am not a lawyer. But just as I don’t need to be a ‘biologist’ to define what a woman is, I don’t need to be a lawyer to know what is wrong with yesterday’s gutting of Title IX by the Biden Administration’s Department of Education.
In 1972, Title IX was enacted to protect women as a class category in all federally funded education programs. This landmark civil rights law guaranteed the protection of women within the education system. It says:
‘No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.’
Title IX exists to prevent sex-based discrimination in school recruiting, admissions, financial aid, and athletic programs. It also protects girls and women from sexual harassment and assault. The US Department of Education requires federally funded schools to comply in order to continue to receive their funding.
What was it like before 1972? Before Title IX, Girls and women were discriminated against in all levels of education. In grade school, girls were precluded from tasks perceived as ‘for boys’ — masculine things like operating the slide projector. (If you don’t know what a slide projector is, it’s how we looked at pictures in a group, before the internet.)
In the early 1970s, the female enrollment rate in college was 43%. (Today it is 60%.) There were quotas for how many women could be admitted. Scholarships were not readily available for deserving female students who academically excelled. And some majors were prohibited for females in college entirely.
But for all of its broad applications within education, Title IX is most famous for its impact on women and girls in sports. And while not explicitly cited in the new regulations introduced on April 19, everything that is cited can be applied to athletics.
Prior to Title IX, girls’ and women’s athletics teams in elementary school, high school and college simply didn’t exist, for all practical purposes. Furthermore, facilities – e.g. locker rooms – were not available. So even if a girl was interested in competing on the boys’ team – if she could secure a spot – she would have been denied because there were no accommodations.
As of 1972, there were about 300,000 women and girls playing college and high school sports in the U.S. Female athletes received only 2 percent of college athletic budgets, and college scholarships for women didn’t exist.
But by 2012, the 40th anniversary of Title IX’s passing, the number of girls participating in high school sports had risen by a factor of ten. More than three million girls and young women were competing in high school sports. By 2016, one in five girls in the U.S. played sports. Before Title IX passed, the number was one in twenty-seven.
It is worth noting that girls and young women who compete in sports are more likely to graduate from high school, have better self-esteem, have a more positive body image, and are less likely to get pregnant in high school. The developmental, emotional, and educational benefits go on and on.
People like my Aunt Jill, born in 1947, wish Title IX had been in existence to have enabled her to play sports in college.
She was a strong athlete at a time when sports, more often than not, led no further than recreation for girls and young women. She played and competed with the boys outside of school, though she wasn’t allowed to play on the boys’ golf team in high school because there weren’t any girls’ locker rooms.
She told me: ‘I was barely five feet tall and weighed ninety pounds! I couldn’t make the boys’ teams. If I’d been in high school post Title IX, I probably would have run track. And I would have had the chance to play golf and tennis in high school. I feel like I missed a lot being born when I was.’
What do yesterday’s new “regulations” stipulate? New regulations issued by the Department of Education dismantle sex-based protections for women. “Women” are replaced with “gender identity.” If schools do not adhere to protections outlined for “gender identity,” they risk losing their federal funding.
For instance, according to the new rules, if a trans-identified male declares that he is a woman, he must be admitted into the women’s locker room facilities, sororities, and other typically female spaces. If a woman complains, she is violating the new sexual harassment regulations, and she may be charged with gender identity discrimination.
This is another problem with the new decrees.
Compelled Speech. Gender ideology in the form of pronoun recitation must be adhered to lest the violator be charged with harassment. Yes, preferred pronouns are mandated and misgendering can prompt disciplinary proceedings including suspension and expulsion. A single instance can prompt an investigation.
And if that happens, the accused will have no due process rights. Anyone accused of sexual harassment or violence is not entitled to a live hearing or opportunity for cross-examination to defend themselves. An investigator will decide what happens to the accused.
Even the ACLU is criticizing the due process elimination.
Of note, the ACLU approves of the updated language which says that schools cannot discriminate based on ‘gender identity, transgender status, or sexual orientation.’ They seem not to notice or care that the original intention of Title IX was to guarantee sex-based rights for women, something absent from this new version.
In summary, the new Title IX – which is being implemented through pronouncement rather than legislative process – bears no recognition to the original which was created solely for the protection of women. This new version eliminates protections for women and girls and tramples on First Amendment free speech rights as well as Fifth Amendment due process rights. Title IX no longer exists. This new version makes a mockery of a law that was created to protect women, and it replaces educational protections for women with ideology and activism.”
Jennifer Sey is an American author, filmmaker, business executive, and retired artistic gymnast. She was a seven-time member of the U.S. Women’s National Team and was the 1986 U.S. Women’s All-Around National Champion. Her first memoir, “Chalked Up,” was released in 2008 and detailed abuse in the sport of gymnastics. Sey also produced the 2020 Emmy-award-winning documentary film, “Athlete A” on Netflix, which connected the crimes of Larry Nassar to the broader abuses in the Olympic movement.
Sey began working at Levi Strauss & Co. in 1999, rising to chief marketing officer and then Brand President. She was named one of Billboard’s Most Powerful People in Music and Fashion in 2016 and was twice named to Forbes’ Most Influential CMO list in 2019 and 2020.
Starting in 2020, she risked her reputation, community and friendships to speak up against the harm being done to children due to the extended closure of San Francisco’s public schools.
She resigned from Levi’s in 2022 and is now the founder and CEO of her own clothing brand, XX-XY Athletics – the only athletic brand to stand up for women’s sports and female athletes.
Subscribe to DailyClout so you never miss an update!
Really great interview here.. Jen Sey is a stellar advocate for this particular cause, not only because of her qualifications and background, but because she clearly has not an ounce of personal animus toward transgender people, but rather just sticks to the facts and realities that are playing out in the real world to the detriment of women and girls.
However, Naomi reiterated here the notion from the Gays Against Groomers spokesperson that what we are seeing on this issue is inorganic, and something stealth from higher powers. No doubt Big Pharma and its financial tributaries are a major, major factor. Nonetheless, if you take a long view of the political consciousness of gay men and lesbians on transgender issues, you do see a genuine shift in attitude (wrong on many points, in my view) toward maximum acceptance of all demands from the most extreme in the transgender movement. Martina Navratilova, for example, who was fighting for gay rights before many of her critics were even born, is now persona non grata among many in the mainstream LGBTQ movement.
Instead of opting for the quasi-conspiratorial explanation, we would be better off looking at our own antiquated lenses on extremely complex sociological issues such as gender and sexuality. What’s an antiquated lens? I would argue an example of an antiquated sociological lens would be when Naomi prefaces her justified critique of transgender policy extremes by saying, “I’m a pro-LGBTQ” person.” My goodness, if that is the only verbiage that a global best-selling author has to convey to the public that she accepts homosexuality in the human condition then we are really screwed.
I have an aside:
Larry Nassar is scum, but it’s been decades since a Doctor of Osteopathy or a D.O.has been referred to as “Osteopath.” That is an old, out of date term.
If you feel it’s necessary to distinguish him ( or her) separately as a Osteopathic Physician as opposed to a Allopathic Physician, an MD, at least to respect all of the non- scum DO’s , use the modern terminology I have already listed.
I graduated from (Osteopathic) Medical School with a Doctor of Osteopathy degree ( DO) in 1985 and the term “Osteopath” was out of date back then, 39 years ago. As a retired Osteopathic Physician, as a Pediatrician, I think in these modern times, there is very little distinction between the two types of medical schools.
Even as a DO, if the manipulative medicine techniques taught, are or are not used in the medical practice, doesn’t change how you refer to that physician.
Thanks