- Across the country,high school girl athletes

are up against a new challenge:

boys who identify as girlscompeting against them.

In Connecticut, three girl track athletes

are suing the state athletic conference

for forcing them to runagainst transgender athletes,

biological boys who say they're girls.

But last week, the judge in the case

shot down the girls' lawyers,telling them not to refer

to their biological malecompetitors as males.

He called the wordsprovocative and bullying.

Well author Abigail Shrier hasa book coming out next month

on the transgender movement.

It's called "Irreversible Damage:

"The Transgender CrazeSeducing Our Daughters."

And she also has a piecein "Newsweek" this week

on what's happening inthe Connecticut case

and she joins us now.

Abigail, thanks for joining us.

- Thanks for having me on.

- So you think the lawyersrepresenting the female athletes

should not give into the judge's demands.

Tell us about your concern.

- No, they really can't.

This was a highly prejudicial instruction.

This is basically telling the girls

that they should give ahuge part of their case.

Look, the case is aboutwhat rights and privileges

that women have and girls and women have,

in this case, under Title IX

of the 1972 Education Amendments,

which ones are other people entitled to

based on their say-so, basedon their identification.

And one of those rights and privileges

is the right to be called a girl.

Right?

The hypothetical I givein the "Newsweek" article,

is I say imagine a case in which someone

was impersonating an officer

or charged with impersonating the officer.

Imagine a judge instructingthe prosecution,

"You have to refer to thisdefendant as Office O'Malley."

That's highly prejudicial, and that's,

saying that they have torefer to these biological boys

as transgender girlsis effectively saying,

"We know they're some type of girl."

The judge has already decided that.

So the judge, at this point,really must recuse himself

or he really should be reversed.

- So you've just written a bookon the transgender movement.

It's coming out next month.

How important is this Connecticut case

when it comes to the overallwomen's sports issue?

- I think there's no more important case.

When we talk about civil rights,

a lot of things are symbolic.

This is not symbolic.

This is concrete.

These are the opportunities,the scholarships,

the chances for advancementthat women have fought for

in the civil rights movement,in the women's movement.

This was the chance forgirls to actually have

the same scholarshipopportunities as boys.

They're losing them, okay.

This is concrete.

In fact, 13 out of the 14state championship events

since 2017 now in track have been won,

girls' state championship events

have been won by biological boys.

They are stripping away girls' records.

In fact, biological boys have now taken

15 women's state championship titles

since 2016 in Connecticut.

They're literally erasingwomen's history as we speak.

This is a very, very serious issue.

It means these girls are not advancing.

Fewer girls are now advancingto regional championships

because the boys can so easily beat them.

- Well I'm curious becauseyou've just written this book.

What are you hearing fromparents across the country

when it comes specificallyto the sports issue?

Are they waking up to what's going on,

that their daughters might be having

to compete against boys,that their daughters

might be losing opportunities,scholarships, et cetera?

- I do hear from parents.

To be honest, I don't hearfrom enough, to some extent.

I don't think Democrats particularly

are awake to this issue.

Every Democratic candidate for president

has supported the Equality Act.

This would completely give away rights

of women and girls.

They cannot, for some reason, right now,

the Democratic Party cannotwait to give away the right,

hard on rights of women and girls.

It's wrong, and it'snot theirs to give away.

- Well we're gonna befollowing this case closely.

I know, fascinating issue in our time.

Abigail Shrier, thanks for your insights.

- Oh, thanks for having me on.