As the Supreme Court hears oral arguments today in two major cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., that will shape the future of women’s sports, it is worth separating fact from fiction. Everyone loves the party game “Two Truths and a Lie.” Can you identify which of the following statements about the women’s sports cases at SCOTUS is a lie?
A. The Supreme Court is considering whether states may lawfully recognize biological sex when enacting laws and policies that protect fairness and safety in women’s sports.
B. A ruling in favor of the states will restore clarity to the law and Title IX by affirming that “sex” refers to biological sex, not gender identity.
C. These cases are limited to athletics and would have no implications for locker rooms, prisons, or other sex segregated female-only spaces.
Let’s take these statements one at a time:
A. TRUTH! These cases involve challenges to laws enacted by Idaho and West Virginia to protect fairness and safety in women’s sports. The Court’s decision will determine whether these state laws may continue to recognize biological sex and preserve the protections that ensure women’s sports remain fair and women’s spaces remain safe. These commonsense protections are based on the well-documented biological differences between males and females that directly affect athletic performance, strength, speed, and injury risk.
Physiologically, males have a larger heart, lungs, more bone mass, more muscle mass, and are taller than females. These physiological differences contribute to the male athletic advantage. Males jump higher, throw further, run and accelerate faster, punch harder, and are stronger than females. It is undisputed that males retain significant physical advantages over females, making sex-based categories essential to fairness and safety in women’s sports.
B. TRUTH! A ruling upholding the state laws would bring clarity to Title IX and to sex-based protections more broadly. For more than 50 years, Title IX has guaranteed equal athletic opportunities for women on the basis of biological sex, not self-declared “gender identity.” However, due to former President Biden’s attempted illegal re-write of Title IX and activist judges, that clear understanding has been obscured by undermining the very protections Title IX was designed to uphold. By affirming that “sex” in the law refers to biological sex and does not include gender identity, the Supreme Court would reinforce the legal foundation of women’s sports.
C. LIE! Although the context of these cases involves women’s sports, the legal questions before the Court extend far beyond athletics. A decision affirming the constitutionality of sex-based distinctions would safeguard and extend protections to other female-only spaces such as locker rooms, showers, and prisons. Conversely, a ruling that erases biological sex as a legal category would have sweeping implications for women by effectively erasing women as a legally protected class.
Bottom Line: The legal stakes are far more than who competes on the playing field. SCOTUS will be presented with a clear choice: uphold biological reality and the sex-based protections that have ensured fairness and opportunity for women for over 50 years, or erase sex as a legal category altogether. The Supreme Court has an opportunity to restore clarity to the law and reaffirm that policies grounded in biological reality are lawful, necessary, and constitutional. The stakes could not be higher.