Loading …Military snipers stood watch on the Supreme Court roof Tuesday while two crowds below screamed at each other. One side chanted “Trans! Trans! Trans!” The other shouted “Stop cutting off the breasts!” Inside, lawyers for transgender athletes spent two hours in full retreat.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether states can ban biological males from competing in women’s sports. The legal team defending transgender athlete inclusion couldn’t defend their graduation timeline, wouldn’t define the word “sex,” and walked away from reporters asking basic questions about their case.
By evening, the consensus among court watchers was clear: the side fighting to keep biological males in women’s sports just lost badly. The only question is whether the ruling will be 9-0 or merely a strong conservative majority.
Discussion
If you are such a weak person that you have to compete against women then you are a a real loser.
60 year womens softball pitching coach…NO TRANS IN WOMENS GAME…..PUT TRUMP IN RIKERS ISLAND FUNHOUSE and his THREE BOYS IN MARINE CORPS PARIS ISLAND !
What a stupid comment. What the heck is it supposed to mean?
He suffers from stage 4 TDS
Your a dumb ass
I find it very scary that so many people think it's ok for children to be mutilated. AND that people maintain they are protecting children from their parents by thinking it's ok to do this WITHOUT THE PARENTS KNOWING ABOUT IT. I love America but the country has gone downhill morally!
To even consider any males in women's sports is such a slap in the face for every woman athlete out there. First having only "gym class level' sports for a over a century or more, to finally having high level sports for women and then to be forced to compete against MEN who SAY they are women is so insulting!! Sharing locker rooms is sickness meant to further demean women.
It's not like when my 50+ sons were playing little league and got their first girl on their team
Absolutely NOT.
If a person claims to be male to female trans in order to play in a sport in order to win, then they are only deceiving themselves!!!
no surgery can change the dna make up of a person. dna needs to be checked before a person can play on a team. transgender males to females will always be stronger due to in born dna
Leave a Comment
Leave a Comment
The Mootness Argument That Collapsed
Attorneys for Lindsay Hecox—a transgender athlete who sued to compete on Boise State’s women’s cross-country team—tried to get their own lawsuit dismissed as moot now that it reached the Supreme Court.
The strategy was transparent: win in lower courts, block Idaho’s law protecting women’s sports, then argue the case is moot before the Supreme Court can rule. Hecox would keep competing. The law would stay blocked. No precedent gets set.
The mootness argument relied on Hecox graduating in May 2026, rendering questions about athletic eligibility irrelevant. The legal filing stated explicitly: “I am currently enrolled in classes that may allow me to graduate as early as May 2026.”
Then Idaho did some checking. Boise State is a state institution – Idaho asked, and the university confirmed graduation in May was “unlikely.” Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst called the May graduation date “not possible” during oral arguments.
Attorney Kathleen Hartnett had to retreat: “She’s unlikely to graduate by May, as my friend said, but is hoping to make, through summer credits, to graduate in the fall.”
The timeline shifted from May to fall after Idaho exposed the discrepancy. Alliance Defending Freedom attorney John Bursch told Fox News: “It just shows that throughout the case, Hecox has flipped back and forth.”
The justices don’t appreciate being misled. Starting oral arguments by correcting your own mootness claim is not strong legal positioning.
The Attorney Who Wouldn’t Define “Sex”
The second case involved a West Virginia transgender athlete suing to compete in girls’ sports. ACLU attorney Joshua Block argued that Title IX protects transgender athletes. Then Chief Justice John Roberts asked what seemed like a simple question: what does “sex” mean in Title IX?
Block’s response: “I really urge the court not to do it on the definition of sex argument.”
He later added: “I don’t think the purpose of Title IX is to have an accurate definition of sex. I think the purpose is to make sure that sex isn’t being used to discriminate by denying opportunities.”
Roberts pressed: sex “must mean something.” Block eventually conceded—but only for this case: “I think for this case, you can accept, for the sake of this case, that we’re talking about what they’ve termed to be biological sex.”
After oral arguments, Fox News asked Block directly: what is your definition of sex?
Block refused: “I don’t think that’s what’s at issue in this case. What’s at issue in this case is fair treatment for all people, including cis people and trans people.”
Then he walked away. No further questions answered. The attorney arguing a Title IX sex discrimination case to the Supreme Court wouldn’t define “sex” for reporters.
The Constitutional Question Buried in Semantics
Title IX states: “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.”
The statute uses the word “sex.” The question before the Court: does “sex” mean biological sex, or does it include gender identity?
Block’s refusal to define the term isn’t evasion—it’s legal strategy. If “sex” means biological sex, Title IX allows sex-separated sports and Idaho and West Virginia win. If “sex” includes gender identity, then excluding transgender athletes might be discrimination.
But Block’s strategy collapsed under questioning. You cannot argue a sex discrimination case while refusing to define sex. The justices need to know what the statute protects to determine if states violated it.
Block’s concession—accepting biological sex “for this case”—essentially conceded the constitutional question. If sex means biology for Title IX purposes, sex-separated sports are explicitly permitted and transgender athlete bans are constitutional.
The Harassment Allegations That Surfaced
Former teammate Adaleia Cross alleged the West Virginia transgender athlete sexually harassed her. The allegations surfaced before the hearing. The ACLU denied them, saying the school investigated and found them “unsubstantiated.”
West Virginia Attorney General John McCuskey addressed the allegations Monday: “Any time you think of a child being harassed, it gives you pause as a parent. And it isn’t really part of our case, but harassment of any child of any kind in this country is inappropriate.”
Fox News tried asking Block about McCuskey’s statement Tuesday. Block walked away, ignoring multiple questions.
That evening, Adaleia Cross’s mother Abby Cross spoke at an Alliance Defending Freedom gala. She recounted the alleged harassment in emotional detail. Multiple attendees cried. Former San Jose State volleyball player Brooke Slusser—who unknowingly shared locker rooms with a biological male teammate—said it “brought tears to my eyes.”
Former volleyball player Payton McNabb, who suffered permanent brain injuries after being spiked in the head by a transgender opponent, said the story made her “physically sick.”
The allegations aren’t legally part of the Supreme Court cases. But they’re part of the cultural context—the real-world consequences of policies allowing biological males in women’s spaces and sports.
Why the Legal Team Kept Retreating
The pattern was consistent: transgender athlete legal teams retreated on graduation timeline, retreated on defining sex, retreated from reporter questions, offered prepared statements then left.
Meanwhile, attorneys for Idaho and West Virginia stood in the Supreme Court courtyard taking unlimited questions. They kept offering to answer more even when reporters had nothing left to ask.
The contrast reveals confidence. When your legal position is strong, you welcome questions. When it’s weak, you avoid scrutiny.
The legal problem for transgender athlete advocates is fundamental: Title IX explicitly allows sex-separated programs. The statute says schools can operate “separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex.” It explicitly permits sex separation.
If sex means biology—which even Block conceded for this case—then biological sex-separated sports are statutorily authorized. States excluding biological males from women’s sports are implementing Title IX as written, not violating it.
What the Justices’ Questions Revealed
The consensus among court watchers: the conservative majority appears ready to uphold state laws protecting women’s sports.
Roberts pressed on defining sex. Justice Samuel Alito questioned competitive fairness. Justice Brett Kavanaugh explored Title IX’s original meaning. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked about physiological advantages.
Even justices potentially sympathetic to transgender inclusion seemed to struggle with the legal arguments. How do you argue sex discrimination when you won’t define sex? How do you claim Title IX requires transgender inclusion when the statute explicitly permits sex-separated facilities?
Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador told reporters: “I was actually surprised how the judges, who I assume are not going to be as friendly to our side, were really struggling with the questions… they were trying to find a way to articulate the other side’s position, and even they were having a hard time articulating the other side’s position.”
When justices can’t articulate your position, you’re losing.
The Equal Protection Versus Title IX Question
The constitutional framework is complex. Transgender athlete advocates argue excluding them violates Equal Protection—the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal treatment.
States argue they’re implementing Title IX’s explicit authorization for sex-separated programs. If the statute permits sex separation, states aren’t violating equal protection by implementing it.
The question becomes: does Equal Protection require treating biological males who identify as female identically to biological females in athletic contexts where physiology matters?
The answer likely determines the case. If biology creates relevant differences that justify different treatment in sports, Equal Protection doesn’t prohibit sex-based classifications. If gender identity is the controlling factor, sex-based classifications might be unconstitutional discrimination.
The justices’ questions suggested they see biological sex as the relevant classification for athletics. That view supports Idaho and West Virginia.
The Cultural Battle Outside
The protests outside the Supreme Court were visceral. Women wearing XX-XY shirts—referencing chromosomes—faced activists painted in transgender pride colors. Some activists wore costumes. Some wore almost nothing.
The chants were dueling: “Stop cutting off the breasts!” versus “Trans! Trans! Trans!”
Former athletes who’ve competed against transgender opponents were there. Riley Gaines, who tied with Lia Thomas for fifth place at NCAA championships then watched Thomas get the trophy. Payton McNabb, who suffered brain injury from a transgender opponent’s spike. Brooke Slusser, who unknowingly shared locker rooms with a biological male teammate.
Women’s fencer Stephenie Turner, who got disqualified for kneeling in protest of a transgender athlete, said: “It was amazing to be in a room with people who are in agreement on common sense for the first time.”
The cultural movement is growing. XX-XY Athletics co-founder Jennifer Sey said the brand now receives over 30 brand ambassador applications per week from college athletes—up from having to pursue endorsers in 2024.
What Happened to Title IX’s Original Purpose
Title IX was passed in 1972 to protect women from sex-based discrimination in education. It created opportunities for women in athletics by requiring equal treatment and allowing sex-separated programs.
Before Title IX, women’s sports barely existed in most schools. The statute revolutionized women’s athletics by guaranteeing funding, facilities, and opportunities.
Now Title IX is being interpreted to potentially require biological males who identify as female to compete in women’s sports—the opposite of protecting women’s athletic opportunities.
The irony is stark: a statute designed to create women’s sports opportunities is being used to argue that excluding biological males from those opportunities is discrimination.
Justice Alito explored this tension during arguments. If Title IX’s purpose was creating opportunities for biological females, does requiring inclusion of biological males undermine that purpose?
The Physiological Reality Nobody Disputes
Even transgender athlete advocates don’t seriously dispute that biological males have physiological advantages in most sports. Male puberty creates increased muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, and cardiovascular performance.
Hormone therapy reduces some advantages. But studies show significant advantages remain even after years of testosterone suppression. Height doesn’t change. Bone structure doesn’t change. Lung capacity reduces partially but not to female levels.
The question isn’t whether advantages exist – they do. The question is whether those advantages justify exclusion, or whether inclusion despite advantages is required by anti-discrimination principles.
States argue physiological reality justifies sex-separated sports. Transgender advocates argue identity should override physiology. The Supreme Court must decide which principle controls.
The Safety Question That Keeps Surfacing
Payton McNabb’s story is powerful. A high school volleyball player, she took a spike from a transgender opponent that caused permanent brain injury. She still suffers effects years later.
Women’s sports include contact and collision. Volleyball spikes. Basketball rebounds. Soccer challenges. The force behind those actions differs between biological males and females.
McNabb said about the Cross harassment allegations: “Hearing that story honestly made me physically sick. This is exactly why we are fighting, because this is what is happening to young girls.”
Safety isn’t legally dispositive—Title IX is about discrimination, not safety. But it’s part of the cultural context. When teenage girls get seriously injured competing against biological males, or allegedly harassed in locker rooms, the policy consequences become undeniable.
What West Virginia and Idaho Actually Did
Both states passed laws prohibiting biological males from competing in women’s and girls’ sports. The laws allow transgender athletes to compete in boys/men’s sports or co-ed sports. They only prohibit competing in sex-protected categories for the opposite sex.
The laws don’t ban transgender athletes from sports. They ban biological males from women’s sports specifically.
That distinction matters legally. If the laws said “no transgender athletes in any sports,” the discrimination claim is stronger. But the laws say “compete according to biological sex” – implementing Title IX’s explicit permission for sex-separated programs.
West Virginia Attorney General McCuskey is optimistic for 9-0 ruling in the states’ favor. Idaho’s Labrador expects to win but thinks 9-0 is too optimistic.
The decision is expected by summer 2026.
The Locker Room Question Nobody Wants to Discuss
Brooke Slusser’s experience reveals the issue most people find most uncomfortable: locker rooms and changing facilities.
Slusser unknowingly shared changing spaces and sleeping accommodations with a biological male teammate during the 2023 volleyball season. She learned later that her teammate was transgender.
Title IX explicitly allows “separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex.” If sex means biology, schools can require biological males to use male facilities regardless of gender identity.
If sex includes gender identity, schools might be required to allow biological males in female facilities based on identification.
The Supreme Court isn’t deciding locker room policies in this case. But the definition of “sex” in Title IX applies to all sex-separated facilities and programs. Whatever the Court rules about sports will affect locker rooms, bathrooms, and other sex-separated spaces.
That’s why the stakes extend far beyond athletics.
What Happens If States Lose
If the Supreme Court rules against Idaho and West Virginia, state laws protecting women’s sports nationwide become constitutionally suspect. Roughly half the states have passed similar laws. All would face immediate legal challenge.
Biological males who identify as female would have constitutional right to compete in women’s sports. Schools couldn’t exclude them without facing Title IX liability.
Women’s sports would fundamentally change. Records would fall. Scholarships would shift. Safety concerns would intensify. Female athletes would lose opportunities to biological males.
The cultural backlash would be enormous. But legal options would narrow – if the Supreme Court rules inclusion is constitutionally required, states can’t override that through legislation.
What Happens If States Win
If the Supreme Court upholds Idaho and West Virginia laws, states retain authority to protect women’s sports through sex-based classifications.
Transgender athletes would compete according to biological sex. Biological males would compete in men’s categories or co-ed options, but not women’s sports.
The ruling wouldn’t ban voluntary inclusion – schools and leagues could still allow transgender participation if they choose. But it would establish that states can prohibit it without violating Title IX or Equal Protection.
The precedent would extend beyond sports to other sex-separated programs and facilities. Schools could maintain sex-separated locker rooms, bathrooms, and housing based on biology rather than gender identity.
The Justices Who Will Decide
The conservative majority – Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett – appears likely to uphold state laws based on oral argument questions.
The liberal justices – Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson – asked questions more sympathetic to transgender inclusion but struggled to articulate legal basis for requiring it.
Justice Kavanaugh may be pivotal. His questions explored Title IX’s original meaning and purpose. If he concludes the statute was designed to protect biological females and explicitly permits sex-separated programs, his vote likely goes to states.
Justice Barrett’s questions on physiological advantages suggested she sees biology as legally relevant. If advantages are real and significant, equal protection may permit different treatment.
The decision likely comes down to whether “sex” in Title IX means biology or includes gender identity. Block’s concession that biology applies “for this case” may have decided it.
no comment