Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) delivered a fiery and, at times, bewildering speech on the House floor Tuesday, railing against The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, which seeks to preserve women’s sports by barring biological males from competing in female-designated athletic programs.
As has become her hallmark, the Congresswoman’s tirade was marked by exaggerated claims, emotional appeals, and a lack of coherence that left even her supporters scratching their heads. Social media critics wasted no time roasting her performance, dubbing it another example of over-the-top theatrics disconnected from the facts.
The bill, which passed the House with unanimous Republican support and the backing of two Democrats, explicitly defines sex as based on biological characteristics and genetics at birth. It is a clear and straightforward measure to safeguard opportunities for female athletes under Title IX, a law originally designed to protect women’s access to educational programs and sports. Yet, according to Ocasio-Cortez, the legislation is nothing short of an existential threat to progress and inclusion.
Her speech began with the now-familiar tactic of conflating unrelated issues to vilify her political opponents. She accused Republicans of hypocrisy for supporting this bill while opposing the Violence Against Women Act and defending pro-life policies, painting a dystopian picture of women “bleeding out in parking lots” due to abortion restrictions.
Notably, abortion is currently protected in 21 states and the District of Columbia, and President-elect Donald Trump has made clear his stance that abortion policy should remain a state matter. The emotional imagery, while dramatic, had no direct connection to the issue at hand: protecting competitive fairness in women’s sports.
Actually @AOC, real feminists love this bill. https://t.co/nIZnkoUegA
— Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) January 14, 2025
Ocasio-Cortez then made the bizarre claim that the bill could lead to “genital examinations” of young girls, a talking point that has been widely debunked. The text of the bill contains no mention of such procedures, but the Congresswoman, along with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and other Democrats, has clung to this as a central argument against the legislation. “When there is no enforcement mechanism, you open the door to every enforcement mechanism!” she declared, though it’s unclear how her alarmist conclusion follows from the actual language of the bill.
The speech only unraveled further from there. In an attempt to critique the bill’s focus on biological differences, Ocasio-Cortez launched into a muddled anecdote about playing co-ed sports in gym class, implying that such casual environments somehow equate to competitive athletics. She then veered into a warning about the bill allegedly enforcing “traditional femininity” and encouraging discrimination based on appearance. Yet, the bill says nothing about how women present themselves, nor does it address issues like clothing or lifestyle choices. Her argument seemed detached from the reality of the legislation before the House.
In perhaps the most baffling moment, Ocasio-Cortez tied the bill to the California wildfires, declaring, “CEOs love this bill. Because Los Angeles is on fire right now, and this is the No. 1 priority this majority has.” The leap from protecting women’s sports to wildfires—and the vague mention of CEOs—left many observers wondering whether even she understood the connection she was trying to make.
Unsurprisingly, the Congresswoman became the subject of a viral roast on social media following her speech. Critics pointed out the irony of her continued insistence that “trans girls are girls,” while glossing over the impact such policies have on biological women. Others highlighted her tendency to lean on hyperbole and emotional appeals rather than engaging with the actual substance of the legislation. Even moderate voices noted that Ocasio-Cortez’s performance may have done more harm than good for her cause, as her outlandish claims overshadowed legitimate debates over how best to handle transgender inclusion in sports.
