Allowing biological males to compete in women’s and girls’ sports is no longer a partisan issue in America. According to recent surveys, some 75 to 79 percent of Americans oppose it. Even two-thirds of Generation Z oppose it. The NCAA and other major sports organizations now oppose it as well.
In other words, the madness of letting biological men and boys compete against—and sometimes physically injure—women and girls is now widely recognized. Yet two federal appellate courts held in 2024 that states are unable to stop this madness. These courts enjoined laws passed in Idaho and West Virginia that barred biological boys from competing on girls’ sports teams.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in those cases Tuesday and looks poised to reverse the appellate rulings. That makes sense because, putting ideology aside, the legal arguments lean so heavily in favor of Idaho and West Virginia. But a sharp line of questioning opened up by Justice Elena Kagan complicates the matter.
The plaintiffs are biological boys who transitioned. They assert a right to play on girls’ sports teams. Their constitutional argument is twofold.
First, the plaintiffs say that Idaho and West Virginia are discriminating against them based on their transgender status. This is a very weak argument.
