The Supreme Court Can Put Women’s Sports Back on Track

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear two cases—one being argued by West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey and another by Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, both with the assistance of Alliance Defending Freedom—asking if states can protect their female athletes by giving them a protected sports category. States should most certainly be permitted to do so.

The Supreme Court has already recognized that the differences “between men and women…remain cause for celebration,” and that when we ignore “even our most basic biological differences” we make efforts at equality “superficial” and “disserve” them. Few contexts highlight the inherent differences between men and women like competitive athletics. It’s vital to recognize and celebrate biological differences in the sports context to afford both men and women real, competitive opportunities.

Thankfully, we have a law that aims to do just that. Passed more than 50 years ago, Title IX has made strides in increasing athletic opportunities for females, who historically had minimal avenues to compete in school sports compared to males.

Title IX’s efforts were met with great success. Between 1972 and today, there has been a 1,000% increase in athletic opportunities for high-school girls. The benefits extend beyond the playing field, opening doors for higher education through scholarships. Women make up 44% of college athletes and receive 41% of athletic scholarships; this is remarkable considering that women had negligible opportunities for sports scholarships before Title IX.

But over the last decade, in policy and culture, we’ve largely disregarded the inherent differences between men and women. To call this a disservice is a profound understatement. According to a United Nations study, nearly 900 medals have gone to males competing in the female category. Girls have lost podium spots, been displaced from competing, and sacrificed scholarships to male athletes. We at Alliance Defending Freedom represent numerous girls whose state championship medals have gone to male athletes.

But the harms extend even beyond the field and court. In states across the country, kids are forced to open their private spaces to students who identify as the opposite sex. And when they courageously voice the discomfort they and their peers feel, administrators are frequently quick to make these kids feel like the problem—suggesting they find another place to change if they don’t want to undress in front of a member of the opposite sex.

The harms of denying biological truth are often couched as compassion for kids struggling with their identity. But children experiencing confusion with their gender are also victims. These kids deserve real help, not to be pushed to reject their bodies, setting themselves up to be lifelong patients and risk the known and unknown harms of experimental drugs and surgeries.

This is even more true given that the vast majority of kids who are uncomfortable in their gender will naturally come to comfort with their sex if they aren’t impeded by interventions like being “socially transitioned.” In contrast, kids who socially transition—through the use of names and pronouns and being placed on sports teams and in private spaces of the opposite sex—are significantly more likely to persist in their gender discomfort, eventually turning to invasive hormones and surgeries, without countervailing mental health benefits.

Everyone loses when we deny reality, and none more so than vulnerable kids.

But when society celebrates the beauty of the real differences between males and females, we all win. This doesn’t mean adhering to rigid stereotypes about what it looks like to be a boy or girl—just the opposite. It means recognizing that an array of interests and attributes can exist for both men and women.

In moving beyond stereotypes, however, we shouldn’t disregard essentials—like the fact that, on average, males possess significant biological advantages over women in nearly every measure of athleticism, and that this means that allowing boys to compete in girls’ sports could be the undoing of female athletics. Or that physical differences are the reasons we have designated intimate spaces for men and women, and that it’s normal to feel unsafe and uncomfortable changing in front of the person of the opposite sex.

The Supreme Court has the opportunity to help put things back on track by looking to their past decisions. We hope the court recognizes that states should not be forced to ignore both real biological differences and the consequences that follow from disregarding them.