They are also the reason why we are in this situation in the first play. Angry old lady energy serves both justice and tyranny.

There's something like thirty boxes of information on the thing, and all the others are correct. I suspect whoever was typing it (on a typewriter - this was pre-computers) had several in a row that really were male babies and just got that stuck in their head.

This is not at all accurate. If a girl wants to play a sport for which there is a boys team but not girls team, she must be allowed to try out and participate on the same basis as the boys (a boys team is really an "everyone" team - this actually applies beyond schools and Title IX as no professional sports league in the US actually bars women from competing). Only girls/women's teams get to set restrictions with respect to sex/gender. For Title IX, this is a wildly discriminatory interpretation of a low that bans discrimination, but it's the one that has been in use for years.

And Title IX doesn't require equal funding, but something much more nebulous about impact and opportunity that makes the whole thing kind of intentionally wishy washy so anyone they need to be can not be in compliance. To make it even more impossible to actually comply, questions of funding and opportunity are not limited to what the school itself supplies, so for example anything donated by parents or volunteers (such as the work of a booster club) also counts. So for example, if you cut funding to a boys team and parents more than make up the shortfall in donations and fundraising, it's entirely possible based on that you might have to cut it further. Related, this kind of thing is why less popular boys sports are prone to being cut at the drop of a hat - football and sometimes boys basketball make money, most other sports teams lose money so the school is incentivized not to make cuts from King Football or Prince Basketball, but they have to target equal opportunity and impact between boys and girls athletic spending which means they spend what they're willing to have as a cost on girls teams and cut whatever boys teams they need to cut to avoid cutting into the football budget, because the football budget has an ROI.

Per NFHS website (https://nfhs.org/stories/title-ix-compliance-part-iv-frequently-asked-questions):

FAQ: Does Title IX require that 50 percent of our athletic budget be spent on girls programs and 50 percent be spent on our boys programs? Answer: No. The key to allocating financial resources under Title IX is the overall impact of expenditures – does your school’s allocation of financial resources provide equivalence of athletics opportunities and benefits to boys and girls. Although this will result, in most cases, in an approximate 50-50 budgetary allocation, Title IX does not require a strictly proportional division of dollars.

FAQ: Our school offers soccer for boys, but not for girls. Does Title IX require that we allow girls to play on the boys team? Answer: Title IX requires that in sports where a girls team is not offered, girls must be allowed to try out for the boys team and participate on the same basis as boys. This does not mean that a girl automatically gets to be on the team. She has to try out and make the team on the same basis as any boy would have to try out and make the team. She can also be cut from the team, but only on the same basis as a boy could be cut from the team – for an objectively verifiable lack of ability or a lack of size, strength, skill and experience making participation unsafe.

FAQ: Our school offers volleyball for girls, but not for boys. Does Title IX require that we allow boys to play on the girls team? Answer: No. Although there have been a few, isolated lawsuits where boys have obtained injunctions to allow them to participate on a girls team for which their schools offered no same-sport equivalent for boys, the courts generally rule that the purpose of Title IX is to remedy past inequities of athletics opportunity for the historically under-represented gender – females – and that if boys are allowed to participate on girls teams, they will because of height, weight and strength advantages come to dominate the membership of those teams, and thereby decrease the competitive opportunities for women. Therefore, in the vast majority of cases, the courts have not permitted boys to play on girls teams, even if there is not a same-sport boys team.

Wikipedia, re: Valles Marineris on Mars:

At more than 4,000 km (2,500 mi) long, 200 km (120 mi) wide and up to 7 km (23,000 ft) deep, Valles Marineris is the largest canyon in the Solar System.

Even a rule rooted in transphobia could be well written. This one is not.

I would say it's trans adjacent.

The kid is, was, and always has been a boy, in every sense of the word. Both as their "biological" gender and their actual gender.

Some doctor fucked up and put "female" on the birth certificate. It was noted, corrected and now the birth certificate has been amended.

The USA part of all of this is that bureaucratic bullshit is prohibiting the school from recognising the fact that a mistake happened and allow the poor kid to participate like everyone else. He's stuck in limbo because some dickhead on a power trip who has a hard on for making life difficult for people who are different from them, made a short sighted decision to put such a policy in place, without comprehending that doctors are people who can make mistakes, exactly like the one in the OP. It's the bullshit bureaucracy that's very USA. It's the inflexible rules that are very USA.

The rules were made to punish trans people for daring to try to like who they are, instead of being miserable in the cast they were born into, and it bit them in the ass, inadvertently punishing one of "their own".

So yeah, trans rights, or lack thereof is the reason behind the problem, but the problem is affecting someone who is distinctly not trans.

Not necessarily MMOs but yes, you create an alternative account with the purpose of being matched with lesser skilled players.

Smurfs happen more in shooters, or competitive games like Rocket League, Smash Bros etc. much less in MMO. It's easier to be a smurf when the game is skill based, and less or no dependency on what gear you own as it takes much longer to earn top tier gear that helps keep you at top.

lol, high school.