These rulings rest on one basic principle: sex is an immutable characteristic. The Supreme Court’s recognition of biological reality has the potential to reshape how courts evaluate countless laws and policies beyond athletics.
One of the most important places where this recognition is desperately needed is in women’s prisons.
For the last several years, my friends in prison have watched brave female athletes stand up against a Goliath they know all too well: gender ideology. When men with fully intact genitalia suddenly self-identify as women, they are given a red carpet welcome by the state into women’s prisons. Female inmates, meanwhile, have slowly been erased by a movement disguised as compassionate, inclusive, and humane. It is none of those things.
Many people assume that once someone is incarcerated, there is nothing left to lose. That assumption could not be more wrong. One woman in California who dared to speak up lost the most precious thing a prisoner can possess: her chance at freedom. She lost her parole suitability grant after filing a grievance against SB 132 about the retraumatization caused by being housed with physically intact men. As a survivor of sexual abuse, she received disciplinary infractions for harassment and false reporting, even though she took the proper avenues to voice an inmate concern and advocate for herself. Both charges were eventually dropped, but not before her freedom was revoked. This sent a clear message to the entire female population: that standing up for yourself would have serious consequences. California chose to elevate men’s desires to identify as women over the rights of actual women, who are simply seeking safety, privacy, and dignity in a space from which they literally cannot escape.
The result has been a major power imbalance that has left many women inmates living in a constant state of hypervigilance. For survivors of sexual abuse—who comprise a significant percentage of the female prison population—the forced presence of biological males reopens wounds they are trying to heal. Indeed, for many women, prison is supposed to be a place where they can finally begin recovering from a lifetime of violent abuses. Instead, across America, they are finding themselves once again sleeping, showering, dressing, and living alongside men non-consensually. Any correctional policy that ignores these realities is not trauma-informed; it is trauma-inducing. What makes this even more alarming is that a significant number of the male transfers into women’s prisons have been convicted of violent crimes against women or sexually motivated offenses.
Many prison systems have adopted policies that leave female inmates with virtually no meaningful avenue to object. When incarcerated women report safety concerns, privacy violations, intimidation, or even sexual assault, they are too often dismissed as intolerant, accused of discrimination, or retaliated against for speaking out.
This is cruel and unusual punishment.
The parallels between women’s sports and women’s prisons are impossible to ignore.
In sports, allowing males to compete against females creates obvious concerns about competitive fairness, safety, and equal opportunity. In prison, those same biological differences affect nearly every aspect of daily life. In both circumstances, it is about physical safety, bodily privacy, and psychological well-being, but in prison, the government has a constitutional obligation to protect those it has placed in its custody with no ability to leave.
As an ambassador for Independent Women, I have had the privilege of developing friendships with courageous female athletes whose experiences eerily mirror those of incarcerated women. The same movement that celebrates placing women at a competitive disadvantage is also perfectly comfortable forcing girls to undress in front of males in locker rooms. It is the same movement that labels incarcerated women “transphobic” when they report being sexually assaulted by a trans-identifying male prisoner. The labels change, but the message remains the same: women should remain silent as their opportunities and privacy are stripped away.
My home state of California has become one of the clearest examples of what happens when ideology replaces common sense. Legislators proudly promote law after law claiming to advance dignity, respect, and inclusion, yet somehow women consistently become the exception. California now allows biological males to transfer into one of only two women’s prisons in the state while simultaneously celebrating policies that allow biological males to capture girls’ state athletic championships again and again.
The contradiction is blinding. California operates 31 adult prisons, yet only two are designated for women. Despite those limited spaces, women are expected to surrender privacy, security, and opportunities for rehabilitation in the name of inclusion. The state’s commitment to protecting women appears to end the moment doing so conflicts with gender ideology.
The Supreme Court’s recent decisions should encourage policymakers to reconsider these policies through a constitutional lens. The Court did not merely uphold two state athletic laws. In its majority opinion, the Court clarified that, within the context of Title IX, “sex” and “gender identity” are distinct concepts. This legal principle extends far beyond the playing field. Correctional facilities routinely classify inmates by sex for reasons directly related to safety, security, medical care, privacy, and institutional order. Those distinctions have never been arbitrary. They exist because the physical differences between men and women are real, measurable, and significant, both legally and biologically.
Federal legislation, and state legislation, will ultimately be necessary to ensure women and girls receive equal protection regardless of where they live. If states without necessary protections for women in law remain free to define “woman” according to ideology rather than biology, women living in the most politically extreme jurisdictions will continue losing rights and will effectively be erased.
You cannot protect what you cannot define. Using biologically accurate definitions of “man” and “woman” should never have become controversial. Those definitions are not rooted in prejudice; they are rooted in reality. They provide the foundation upon which countless laws protecting women and girls have been built for generations. Without clear definitions, protections become meaningless.
Women are not asking for special treatment. We are asking to retain protections that were created precisely because women are physically different from men. We are asking to compete fairly, to maintain bodily privacy, to heal from trauma without being retraumatized, and to exist without having to apologize for biological reality. These are not radical demands. They are the very freedoms that make the promises of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness meaningful.
For the women and girls living in the 23 states that have yet to break free from the death grip of gender ideology, these Supreme Court decisions offer something that has been in short supply: hope. After years of darkness, there is finally a small pinprick of light at the end of a very long tunnel.
For the women sitting inside prison cells who have felt forgotten, silenced, or sacrificed in the name of progress, this decision represents you, too. It is a reminder that biological reality still matters, that truth has not disappeared, and that, just maybe, the law is beginning to recognize what we have known all along.