Unpacking the Supreme Court’s Decision to Uphold Fairness in Women’s Sports
On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a good decision upholding state laws that protect fairness in women’s sports.
The ruling makes it clear that states can keep biological males from competing in girls’ athletics at school. It also clarifies that the word “sex” in Title IX means biological sex — not gender identity.
Below is a short overview of the ruling and what it does.
Title IX is a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education and in activities that receive federal funding — like school athletic programs.
Over the past 50 years, Title IX has ensured women and girls are able to play sports in public schools, colleges, and universities.
But beginning around 2016, activists started reinterpreting “sex” under Title IX to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
Under that reinterpretation, public schools could be forced to not only let biological males compete in women’s sports, but also let them use girls’ showers, locker rooms, sleeping quarters, and changing areas at school and on school trips.
In response, many states enacted laws protecting students’ physical privacy and safety, and 27 states passed legislation preserving fairness in women’s sports.
The ACLU challenged West Virginia’s and Idaho’s laws governing girls’ sports, and that lawsuit made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court — where they were upheld.
The Court’s decision protecting fairness in girls’ sports makes it clear that the word “sex” in Title IX means “biological sex” — not gender identity. The decision says:
“The term ‘sex’ in Title IX, the Javits Amendment, and the Title IX regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex. The ordinary meaning of the term ‘sex’ at the time of enactment in the early 1970s was biological sex and not gender identity, particularly in the sports context.”
The Supreme Court ruled 9–0 that under Title IX, states may establish girls’ athletic teams based on biological sex. The Court also ruled 6–3 that the Equal Protection Clause lets states establish girls’ athletic teams based on biological sex. In their decision, the justices acknowledged that there is a compelling interest at stake, writing:
“The States argue—and the Court agrees—that the interests of safety and competitive fairness are important interests for purposes of equal protection analysis. And the States’ sex-based classification—limiting women’s and girls’ sports to biological females—is substantially related to those interests. See Ibid. Schools may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex.”
That’s important, because other lawsuits in Minnesota, California, and Connecticut may consider whether the Equal Protection Clause requires states to protect fairness in girls’ sports or simply gives states the option of doing so.
We have written time and again about how women’s athletics is at risk of being erased in America.
For example, female cyclists, swimmers, powerlifters, sprinters, volleyball players, and others have seen their sports radically changed by men who claim to be women.
Letting men compete in women’s sports is unfair. It reverses 50 years of advancements for women, and in some cases it can even be dangerous.
Fortunately, educators, policymakers, and athletic organizations have taken steps to protect women’s sports.
In 2021 Arkansas passed Act 461 by Sen. Missy Irvin (R — Mountain View) and Rep. Sonia Barker (R — Smackover) preventing male student athletes from competing against girls in women’s athletics at school. This good law protects fairness in women’s sports in Arkansas.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision will help protect students and preserve fairness for athletes in Arkansas and in every other state that has enacted laws like Arkansas’. That’s something to celebrate.
Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.
