Supreme Court’s trans sports case: women’s rights vs. men’s feelings

Next week the Supreme Court faces a once-in-a-generation decision point for women.

On Tuesday, the justices will hear oral arguments in two pivotal cases on the future of women’s sports, the most visible current battleground for sex-based rights.

The question before the court is simple: Can states protect women’s rights based on sex? 

Or does gender identity trump sex — and override the intent of Title IX?  

In the two cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., male athletes who identify as female are challenging state laws that bar biological men and boys from competing in girls’ and women’s school sports.

Men have clear physiological advantages: They are faster and stronger than women, no matter how many wrong-sex hormones they ingest.

Letting gender identity override sex is not progress, as ideologues claim.

It pushes women backward — to a time before women’s sports existed at all, when girls like me would never have had the chance to compete.  

I started gymnastics in 1974, just two years after the federal government enacted Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in sports; I went on to become a seven-time national team member and the 1986 National Champion, fighting back from brutal injuries to do it.

I never quit — but had I been forced to compete on an unfair playing field, against boys, I’m not sure I would have persevered.

Why train, sacrifice and risk your body if the deck is stacked against you from the start? 

A generation of young female athletes has experienced this stacked deck, and it has galvanized them.

Since 12-time All-American swimmer Riley Gaines spoke up in 2022,  others have followed.

Frances Staudt, a 16-year-old basketball player in Washington state, is facing a federal civil-rights complaint for refusing to play against a team with a boy on it. 

High-school runners Adaleia Cross and Emmy Salerno stepped forward to accuse the boy at the heart of the West Virginia case of locker-room sexual harassment.  

This movement is being built from the ground up by female athletes who know exactly what’s at stake: There is no quit in them. 

Even if the court rules in favor of biologically based athletics, it may not mandate uniform action nationwide.

While 27 states restrict male participation in women’s sports, blue states from California to Maine are doubling down — even as public support for sex-based categories grows.  

A pro-protection ruling will reinforce these cultural gains.

And it will encourage women whose fears of backlash keep them silent to finally speak up. 

To date, fewer than five currently competing female professional athletes have publicly defended women’s sports.

Who can blame them, after seeing Elizabeth Eddy, a professional soccer player with Angel City FC, get smeared by her own league  after pleading for common-sense gender standards in her sport.

But leagues cannot shut down debate forever and expect female athletes to continue to pay the price.

The tide is turning: Most major sport governing bodies, including the US Olympic Committee and the NCAA, revised their rules last year following President Donald Trump’s executive order barring male athletes from women’s competition.

In December, rap queen Nicki Minaj declared “there’s nothing wrong with being a boy” — then explained why she was done denying biological reality: “I just got tired of being pushed around.” 

Aryna Sabalenka, the world’s No. 1 women’s tennis player, said it’s “just not fair to women” for males to compete in women’s sports.

She proved it last month when she lost her “Battle of the Sexes” match against Nick Kyrgios, the 671st-ranked male player, despite rule adjustments intended to make the match more competitive.

Indiana Fever star Sophie Cunningham echoed the point in November, noting that a top team of eighth-grade boys could beat a WNBA team.

“If you put them up against females, yeah, they’re gonna win,” she told a podcaster. “I just don’t think that’s a fair matchup.” 

This is not celebrity chatter. The cultural winds are changing. 

And the momentum is undeniable.

Global revenue for women’s athletics surged to $1.88 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach $2.35 billion in 2026, driven by stars like Caitlin Clark and record-breaking attendance across multiple sports, while TV viewership has climbed.

Will that momentum continue? Yes — if protections are upheld.

Clear rules based on sex will strengthen trust, boost investment and encourage participation. 

This Supreme Court moment is not isolated — but it is momentous.

The court will determine whether the United States prioritizes women’s rights over men’s feelings, and whether biological reality still matters in law.

Upholding protections would cement a cultural consensus grounded in truth and fairness, ensuring women’s sports — and women’s rights — endure. 

Jennifer Sey is founder and CEO of XX-XY Athletics.