The Supremes and transgender athletes

The Supremes and transgender athletes

The Supreme Court is hearing a case related to whether males can compete against females in athletic events. Not a lawyer, I assume that the case is on the constitutionality of what the states can do and does not apply to a nationwide ban or lack of a ban. The states involved are Idaho and West Virginia which have statutes prohibiting males competing against women in women’s sports. The side arguing against the state laws claims that forbidding men from competing in women’s sports somehow violates the Constitution by engaging in discrimination on the basis of sex. Further, they argue that discriminating on the basis of “gender identity” constitutes the same thing as sex discrimination. Mind you, I think that this argument is far narrower than arguments relating to Title IX and whether men can use women’s bathrooms and shower facilities.

So is gender the same as sex. Not in my book. I may not be a biologist but it seems to me that gender today is defined socially not by biology. Anyway the left says that there are at least 72 genders and I am pretty certain that there are not 72 sexes.

Again, not a lawyer but whatever ruling comes down from the court I think it would say that it is constitutional for a state to write such laws rather than the court to mandate that all the states must do the same thing. So if California says it is okay and Georgia says that it is not okay, then both are permissible under the Constitution. By the way, it may be okay but certainly it is not fair. Men who are mediocre in men’s competition have claimed to be transgender in order to win women’s events – see William (Lia) Thomas denying women athletes success in their own events. Also it is interesting that while the NCAA ban men from competing in women’s events, it allows women to compete in men’s.

In the arguments, only Justice Jackson appears to have used the term “cisgender.” I can find no record that either Justices Kagan or Sotomayor used the term in their questioning. Here is a sample. She was asking of the West Virginia solicitor general if it was unfair for “cisgender girls”—girls who don’t claim to identify as boys—to compete in girls’ sports while also barring “transgender girls”—boys who claim to identify as girls—from competing with them. She said “For cisgender girls, they can play consistent with their gender identity, for transgender girls, they can’t.” She asked the Idaho attorney “The law expressly aims to ensure that transgender women can’t play on women’s sports teams, so why is that not a classification on the basis of transgender status?”

The response was “The question is whether the application of the law turns on transgender status, and it doesn’t. It turns on sex. The legislature did not want to exclude transgender people from sports, it wanted to keep women’s sports women-only and exclude males from women’s sports.” Jackson then responded “But with respect to two individuals, a cis woman and a trans woman, who both want to play on a team that reflects their gender identity, this law operates differently based on their sex, right?” The response was obvious. “The law does operate differently based on their sex, as your honor just said. It does not operate differently based on their transgender identity.”

Jackson is obviously trying to get both attorneys to say that gender identity is the same as one’s sex when she said “But it treats transgender women differently than cisgender women, doesn’t it?” That is why she insists on using the terms “cisgender” and “transgender.” But the attorneys – who apparently know the difference between a man and a woman – are saying that they are not the same. By the way, what about the term “sex assigned at birth”? 

Again, please tell me why women on the left won’t defend (real) women athletes. They will talk about boys who transitioned before puberty should be allowed to compete with girls or males who have taken drugs to reduce their levels of testosterone to compete with women. What I want to know is if there is empirical evidence to support those claims? Are the results for boys who transitioned before puberty statistically different in competition with girls? Do males who take testosterone reducing drugs have similar outcomes as the women against whom they compete?

Regardless, I don’t think these questions are relevant in this case. I hope that the decision made by the Court would not even consider these questions but rather only address whether states should be allowed to write their own laws regarding males competing against women in women’s sports. I guess the ruling will be 6-3 in favor of the states’ rights. I would also guess that Jackson would write the dissenting opinion which should make for interesting reading. But on the slim chance that the justices rule with Jackson, then look for the formation of transgender teams to dominate women’s sports. Remember that boys’ soccer team that drubbed the women’s Olympic team?