Transgender high school athletes do exist.

A few years back, a girl that once identified as a boy did well enough at a Tracy area high school in the triple jump that “she” advanced to the state track meet in the girls division.

More recently, a Merced faith-based high school — Stone Ridge Christian High — opted to forfeit a California Interscholastic School Division VI girls volleyball playoff match last November  rather than play a San Francisco Waldorf team with a transgender athlete on the roster.

Why this should matter to you is because, if you have kids in public schools, this could end up reducing funding for their education.

The federal Department of Education has opened up a Title IX violation investigation against the California Interscholastic Federation for defying a Trump executive order mandating boys and girls compete in high school and college sports based on their birth gender.

Title IX is the landmark federation law that went into effect in 1972 to eliminate sex discrimination in education programs that receive federal financial assistance.

It was born in a bid to elevate girls high school and college sports from their backwater status.

They did not have equal opportunities nor did they have equal access to resources.

Back then, high school girls’ sports competition was conducted between schools via independent Girls Athletic Associations.

Boys sports were governed by the CIF.

There were far more sports options for boys.

Boys teams were well funded including better pay stipends for coaches.

When facilities were shared, the boys got the primo practice times.

If there were two gyms, the girls got use of the smaller one or — as it was routinely called — the girls gym.

It even went as far as boys sports had exclusive ownership of Friday competition scheduling, considered the primo day of the week for games.

The early responses by schools was to offer CIF sanctioned girls play for basketball, track, tennis, cross country, and volleyball.

If there wasn’t a sport offered concurrently for girls when one was offered by boys, girls were allowed on boys teams such as football and wrestling.

That ploy did nothing to increase girls access to sports because — surprise, surprise, surprise —  girls were almost always at a physical and skill disadvantage at the high school level when it came to wrestling, football, and even basketball at the rare schools that didn’t offer a girls hoops program.

Schools initially tried to hide behind “gate revenue” arguing boys sports were better equipped and had nicer uniforms because the admission price people paid to attend games was significantly higher overall for boys sports.

As for the CIF, it is the governing body for rules and such for all interscholastic sports in California.

How the CIF ended up in the crosshairs of the Trump administration is simple.

They indicated as a State of California sanctioned organization they will abide by state rules.

In case you’ve just arrived from a 20-year Rip Van Winkle act, Sacramento and Washington, D.C., aren’t exactly in lockstep these days.

And before everyone becomes 100 percent engaged in what has all the makings of a free-for-all skirmish in the public square, there are only two key combatants here and it is not transgender versus non-transgender youth and their respective supporters.

This is a fight between the State of California and the United States government.

And the ammo, so to speak, is money. Lots of money.

It has been said who controls the money makes the rules.

In terms of transgender athletes in high school sports, there are only two real players at the table — the state government and the federal government.

Do not direct any anger or pressure at local public school districts such as Manteca Unified, Ripon Unified, or Banta Unified.

Doing so is a waste of energy and treating school boards and administrators simply as convenient punching bags regardless of where you fall on the issue of transgender athletes in high schools.

It’s because California, since statehood, has had a statewide public school system.

Sacramento established how school districts could be formed and organized.

The state, for the most part, funds schools and issues guidance.

You might say “but then why does 51 percent of the property tax I pay goes to running the schools?” (Taxes imposed by local voters for school construction is another issue.)

It’s because the state says so, especially under funding rules put in place since the passage of Proposition 13.

The taxes you pay, in an overly simplified explanation, goes toward a state determined funding formula for each school district based on social-economic consideration. How much a district’s property tax revenue is augmented or “raided” via the state general fund depends upon that formula.

The federal government, in the case of Manteca Unified, adds $20.9 million a year to support education programs. That’s roughly 5 percent of the district’s overall $421 million general fund budget spent each year to educate 25,500 students.

Statewide, federal funds account for 13.9 percent of all public school funding in California at all levels.

What is at stake, then, in the transgender athlete debate for Manteca Unified is $20.9 million.

The district, in issuing a statement Thursday that they will follow state law as required, is not weighing in on the side with the most money.

They are following the law.

And the law that matters when it comes to overall how local schools function in California is made in Sacramento and not in Washington, DC.

To be clear, not following the executive order will likely mean Manteca Unified eventually could lose up to $20.9 million a year in federal funds.

Detours through the judicial system aside, it ultimately Sacramento that will decide the fate of that funding.

The cost to keep federal funding flowing to California schools would require the CIF to strike the following wording from its bylaws, “All students should have the opportunity to participate in CIF activities in a manner that is consistent with their gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on a student’s record.”

Not having that wording means the CIF and the school sports programs they govern, would run afoul of Sacramento.

There is little question that “boys” competing as “girls” generally have more power — read that, strength — than girls at the high school level.

Safety and whether a “boy” is taking over one of a limited number of spots on a girls team is not what really matters in this fight even though both sides may argue it is from their viewpoints on gender and fairness.

It is about the respective power of Sacramento versus Washington, D.C.

Sacramento has the power in this case, but by playing their “trump” card against Trump’s across the board executive order involving there shall only be males and females based upon the moment of birth, they are putting $143.7 billion in federal government funds (based on 2021 figures from the U.S. Census Bureau) governments in California receive from Washington at risk.

That’s 14.5 percent of collective California government revenue coming from federal transfers.

The federal money education in California receives at all levels is just the tip of the iceberg.

The CIF’s decision to do what it is required to do under state law for transgenders has raised the ante into the stratosphere.

This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com