It all means winning at sports is more important than any individual human rights. Otherwise, it would be applied in both directions of transition, whether the decision had been to allow or ban.
Here’s a story that should make any sane person, regardless of political view, understand that biological boys in girls sports is insanely unfair and wrong. In June 2025 Nike sponsored an attempt at a 4-minute mile by Faith Kipyegon, a 26 year old female world champion. She was provided every possible advantage from shoes & kit & the track itself to a pacing crew of male runners. And she ran a 4:06 mile - utterly outstanding!! But do you know how many high school boys ran faster than that in 2025? Around two dozen did! How anyone could read these facts and not think biological sex matters in sports is as baffling to me as knowing that people believe Donald Trump cares more about the country than he does about himself.
As usual, Conservatives are worried about the wrong thing. Because if the law says that sex at birth determines eligibility for single gender sporting opportunities, then trans boys and trans men will have to play on women's teams.
I’m totally paraphrasing from “Generations” by Jean Twenge, but two observations I will make:
Prior to the rise of the smartphone the federal government only recognized two sexes, male and female. Since 2012, when more than 50% of the American population owned a device only invented in 2007, I believe there are now six different choices for sex identification.
Second, the law always needs time to catch up to every technical and social advance.
But given that we are mired under a judiciary in which six of the justices have been brainwashed by the Federalist Society - created in the early 1980s in reaction to right wing donors fearful of 1960s and 70s liberal jurisprudence to encourage conservative legal scholars to adopt a fundamentalist approach to interpreting the Constitution - it seems to me that Thomas Jefferson’s fears of such an approach - ie, imposing the Constitutional mores of the Founders on future society (“like making a grown man wear a schoolboy’s coat!”) - are being realized, one human transaction (sports for now) at a time.
I'm female, a strong female. I played basketball, for 25 years, all 25 years against guys. I also played basketball in college at a Big 10 school.
When I was younger and I played basketball against boys, not ever was I strong than any of the boys, and I was a strong girl.
I say the above to say, I don't think any cisgender girl will be stronger than a transgender girl/ boy who changes-changes his gender to female!! Ever, not EVER!!
Cisgender changed to transgender girls, should play sports with boys!! They are boys!!
I tend to think the way you do; it seems to be a question of fair-play. Not that the boy-to-girl is doing anything wrong or undertaking so colossal a life merely for athletic advantage. Yet the boy-to-girl does have an apparent advantage.
The one question that does cross my mind, owing to my lack of knowledge, remains whether a boy transitioning to girl pre-puberty negates the apparent biological differences between genders. That is, will the girl now have the same biology as other girls?
About disparity, read some studies about how (what you call) boy-to-girl humans have no advantage once they've taken hormones.
A major meta-analysis published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine found that after one to three years of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT), trans women had comparable upper/lower body strength and aerobic fitness to cisgender women, despite retaining a higher lean muscle mass.
At the 2020 Olympics 6 African runners: Christine Mboma (Namibia, 400m), Beatrice Masilingi (Namibia, 400m), Aminatou Seyni (Niger, 400m), Caster Semenya (South Africa, 800m), Margaret Wambui (Kenya, 800m), and Francine Niyonsaba (Burundi, 800m) were all withdrawn from their events because they did not meet the eligibility regulations due to their naturally occurring testosterone levels and appearance.
This list of cisgender women athletes accused of being trans is by no means exhaustive, but it highlights the harmful impacts of anti-trans policies on all women.
To be clear, there are real, pervasive threats to women and girls in sports that has nothing to do with trans people’s participation—threats that are being largely ignored by those who call themselves champions of women’s sports. A 2016 USA Today investigation found that at least 368 young gymnasts reported being victims of sexual abuse over the past 20 years. More than 100 coaches and gym officials were accused of abuse, yet USA Gymnastics failed to track predatory coaches, allowing them to move between gyms unchecked and exposing more young girls to harm. Requiring athletes to undergo genital inspections or other invasive methods of verification puts young athletes at even higher risk of abuse.
As the mother of a teans child, I disagree. Let's look at facts over fear.
A large meta-analysis published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine evaluated 52 studies and found that the physical fitness and strength of trans women were highly comparable to their cis peers after hormone therapy.
Research generally shows that after 1 to 3 years of hormone therapy, upper and lower body strength parameters become largely comparable to those of cisgender women.
Trans people are estimated to make up 1-2% of the population of the United States and less than less than .002% of US college athletes. Trans women have been openly playing in women’s sports for decades. When trans people do participate in professional and competitive sports, their participation is carefully regulated by national and international standards to ensure it is fair.
A 2024 study, funded in part by the IOC and published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, concluded that transgender women athletes may actually have several physical disadvantages when competing with cisgender women, including:
Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lower-body strength
Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lung function
Transgender women had a higher percentage of fat mass, lower fat-free mass, and weaker handgrip strength compared to cisgender men
Transgender women’s bone density was found to be equivalent to that of cisgender women, which is linked to muscle strength
There were no meaningful differences found between the two groups’ hemoglobin profiles (a key factor in athletic performance)
Unfortunately, the truth is that the attacks on trans athletes endanger all women by creating an environment of fear, encouraging false allegations, and laying the groundwork for invasive and discriminatory screenings that open the door to abuse.
We should not be looking to politicians or pundits - many of whom have never been to a women’s sporting event - for guidance on how to regulate women’s sports. It’s important that we consider the opinions of experts and, more importantly, follow the science.
Regardless, until a trans male who wants to play female sports does not have a penis and does have a period and is able to bear children, he is biologically male, is physically governed by male hormones, and has NO place competing with females—even STRONG females—despite what his head tells him and despite what his mommy or science tells him. If the trans person were someone other than your child, what would be your response? IJS
First: Can you provide an example, using a real person?
There are no identifiable biological males who openly compete in women's sports without having undergone hormone suppression or therapy. In jurisdictions across the United States, regulations consistently mandate that transgender women meet specific testosterone threshold suppression requirements to be eligible for female divisions. Furthermore, organizations like the NCAA and international bodies like the International Olympic Committee and World Athletics generally enforce strict policies barring individuals with male biology and XY chromosomes from the women's category, heavily penalizing or entirely excluding those who haven't suppressed testosterone.
Second: did you read the studies and did you look at the participation requirements? The type of trans person you described would have zero advantages *once they've taken hormones* and that's proven science.
Again: There are no identifiable biological males who openly compete in women's sports without having undergone hormone suppression or therapy. In jurisdictions across the United States, regulations consistently mandate that transgender women meet specific testosterone threshold suppression requirements to be eligible for female divisions. Furthermore, organizations like the NCAA and international bodies like the International Olympic Committee and World Athletics generally enforce strict policies barring individuals with male biology and XY chromosomes from the women's category, heavily penalizing or entirely excluding those who haven't suppressed testosterone.
The primary factor was if trans women could mitigate their physical differences sufficiently to keep it fair for the cisgender women. You are indicating they can. Otherwise, the person feeling the need to become a trans woman might have to wait until they fulfilled their athletic endeavors, like Bruce Jenner/Caitlyn Jenner as an example.
Thank you for answering my questions. Now on to the sticky questions of fear. Has there been a study on how comfortable other girls or boys are sharing locker room and other intimate facilities with others either transitioning or already transitioned?
That meta-study, by necessity, culls some of the data from most or all individual studies by aggregating various findings. That methodological constraint inserts elements of uncertainty into the over-all conclusion.
Once that study's conclusions are proven to be robust, as they might be with the Olympic Committee report, how is the rest of the community -- mainly boys and girls in intimate settings -- expected to shed the fear in favor of fact?
At their base, these questions attest to the tension between individual rights and communal harmony.
Research tracking peer comfort levels in shared locker rooms highlights a clear generational and experiential divide. Data often shows that younger demographics are significantly more accepting of transgender peers than older adults. For example, a University of Michigan study published in the Journal of Homosexuality found that 79% of youth aged 14–24 believe bathroom and facility use should not be restricted based on birth sex. This sharply contrasts with broader adult polls, where roughly half of the population favors birth-sex restrictions.
When I was playing sports in school, I was uncomfortable changing around my own gender but nobody asks that question.
Legal and policy research from institutions like the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law indicates no empirical evidence linking inclusive facility access to an increase in safety or privacy violations for cisgender users. Studies actually track high levels of discomfort and avoidance among LGBTQ+ youth themselves, who experience elevated rates of harassment in those spaces.
Organizations can (and often do) resolve locker room anxiety by shifting from open-room designs to privacy-focused layouts. This includes adding private changing curtains, individual stalls, and universal single-occupancy facilities. These amenities benefit all students, including those with body image anxieties, trauma, or cultural modesty requirements. That solves everyone's arguments.
Re-assuring information; thank you. Of course, as you point our, the discomfort may be acute for those with non-heterosexual or binary preferences. Let us hope that the generational divide portends meaningful compassion in public policy.
Correction. The three Democrat women justices have maintained honesty and decorum. They have consistently voted against the six corrupt SC-R-OTUS justices on all major issues. (Although, Coney Barrett might not be corrupt, merely a religious fanatic).
It all means winning at sports is more important than any individual human rights. Otherwise, it would be applied in both directions of transition, whether the decision had been to allow or ban.
Here’s a story that should make any sane person, regardless of political view, understand that biological boys in girls sports is insanely unfair and wrong. In June 2025 Nike sponsored an attempt at a 4-minute mile by Faith Kipyegon, a 26 year old female world champion. She was provided every possible advantage from shoes & kit & the track itself to a pacing crew of male runners. And she ran a 4:06 mile - utterly outstanding!! But do you know how many high school boys ran faster than that in 2025? Around two dozen did! How anyone could read these facts and not think biological sex matters in sports is as baffling to me as knowing that people believe Donald Trump cares more about the country than he does about himself.
just another way to control women. because they don't care about defining what a man is... because in the patriarchy, man is the default.
As usual, Conservatives are worried about the wrong thing. Because if the law says that sex at birth determines eligibility for single gender sporting opportunities, then trans boys and trans men will have to play on women's teams.
I’m totally paraphrasing from “Generations” by Jean Twenge, but two observations I will make:
Prior to the rise of the smartphone the federal government only recognized two sexes, male and female. Since 2012, when more than 50% of the American population owned a device only invented in 2007, I believe there are now six different choices for sex identification.
Second, the law always needs time to catch up to every technical and social advance.
But given that we are mired under a judiciary in which six of the justices have been brainwashed by the Federalist Society - created in the early 1980s in reaction to right wing donors fearful of 1960s and 70s liberal jurisprudence to encourage conservative legal scholars to adopt a fundamentalist approach to interpreting the Constitution - it seems to me that Thomas Jefferson’s fears of such an approach - ie, imposing the Constitutional mores of the Founders on future society (“like making a grown man wear a schoolboy’s coat!”) - are being realized, one human transaction (sports for now) at a time.
I think we are living in interesting times. And I am grateful for lawyers like you who can break this stuff down.
I'm female, a strong female. I played basketball, for 25 years, all 25 years against guys. I also played basketball in college at a Big 10 school.
When I was younger and I played basketball against boys, not ever was I strong than any of the boys, and I was a strong girl.
I say the above to say, I don't think any cisgender girl will be stronger than a transgender girl/ boy who changes-changes his gender to female!! Ever, not EVER!!
Cisgender changed to transgender girls, should play sports with boys!! They are boys!!
I tend to think the way you do; it seems to be a question of fair-play. Not that the boy-to-girl is doing anything wrong or undertaking so colossal a life merely for athletic advantage. Yet the boy-to-girl does have an apparent advantage.
The one question that does cross my mind, owing to my lack of knowledge, remains whether a boy transitioning to girl pre-puberty negates the apparent biological differences between genders. That is, will the girl now have the same biology as other girls?
About disparity, read some studies about how (what you call) boy-to-girl humans have no advantage once they've taken hormones.
A major meta-analysis published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine found that after one to three years of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT), trans women had comparable upper/lower body strength and aerobic fitness to cisgender women, despite retaining a higher lean muscle mass.
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/60/3/198
There's this 2021 study:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-021-01451-8?cjdata=MXxOfDB8WXww&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=commission_junction&utm_campaign=CONR_BOOKS_ECOM_GL_PBOK_ALWYS_DEEPLINK&utm_content=textlink&utm_term=PID100101652&CJEVENT=1bb75a3afb9111ef812200040a1cb829
And this 2024 study:
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/58/11/586
At the 2020 Olympics 6 African runners: Christine Mboma (Namibia, 400m), Beatrice Masilingi (Namibia, 400m), Aminatou Seyni (Niger, 400m), Caster Semenya (South Africa, 800m), Margaret Wambui (Kenya, 800m), and Francine Niyonsaba (Burundi, 800m) were all withdrawn from their events because they did not meet the eligibility regulations due to their naturally occurring testosterone levels and appearance.
This list of cisgender women athletes accused of being trans is by no means exhaustive, but it highlights the harmful impacts of anti-trans policies on all women.
To be clear, there are real, pervasive threats to women and girls in sports that has nothing to do with trans people’s participation—threats that are being largely ignored by those who call themselves champions of women’s sports. A 2016 USA Today investigation found that at least 368 young gymnasts reported being victims of sexual abuse over the past 20 years. More than 100 coaches and gym officials were accused of abuse, yet USA Gymnastics failed to track predatory coaches, allowing them to move between gyms unchecked and exposing more young girls to harm. Requiring athletes to undergo genital inspections or other invasive methods of verification puts young athletes at even higher risk of abuse.
As the mother of a teans child, I disagree. Let's look at facts over fear.
A large meta-analysis published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine evaluated 52 studies and found that the physical fitness and strength of trans women were highly comparable to their cis peers after hormone therapy.
Research generally shows that after 1 to 3 years of hormone therapy, upper and lower body strength parameters become largely comparable to those of cisgender women.
Trans people are estimated to make up 1-2% of the population of the United States and less than less than .002% of US college athletes. Trans women have been openly playing in women’s sports for decades. When trans people do participate in professional and competitive sports, their participation is carefully regulated by national and international standards to ensure it is fair.
A 2024 study, funded in part by the IOC and published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, concluded that transgender women athletes may actually have several physical disadvantages when competing with cisgender women, including:
Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lower-body strength
Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lung function
Transgender women had a higher percentage of fat mass, lower fat-free mass, and weaker handgrip strength compared to cisgender men
Transgender women’s bone density was found to be equivalent to that of cisgender women, which is linked to muscle strength
There were no meaningful differences found between the two groups’ hemoglobin profiles (a key factor in athletic performance)
Unfortunately, the truth is that the attacks on trans athletes endanger all women by creating an environment of fear, encouraging false allegations, and laying the groundwork for invasive and discriminatory screenings that open the door to abuse.
We should not be looking to politicians or pundits - many of whom have never been to a women’s sporting event - for guidance on how to regulate women’s sports. It’s important that we consider the opinions of experts and, more importantly, follow the science.
Regardless, until a trans male who wants to play female sports does not have a penis and does have a period and is able to bear children, he is biologically male, is physically governed by male hormones, and has NO place competing with females—even STRONG females—despite what his head tells him and despite what his mommy or science tells him. If the trans person were someone other than your child, what would be your response? IJS
First: Can you provide an example, using a real person?
There are no identifiable biological males who openly compete in women's sports without having undergone hormone suppression or therapy. In jurisdictions across the United States, regulations consistently mandate that transgender women meet specific testosterone threshold suppression requirements to be eligible for female divisions. Furthermore, organizations like the NCAA and international bodies like the International Olympic Committee and World Athletics generally enforce strict policies barring individuals with male biology and XY chromosomes from the women's category, heavily penalizing or entirely excluding those who haven't suppressed testosterone.
Second: did you read the studies and did you look at the participation requirements? The type of trans person you described would have zero advantages *once they've taken hormones* and that's proven science.
Again: There are no identifiable biological males who openly compete in women's sports without having undergone hormone suppression or therapy. In jurisdictions across the United States, regulations consistently mandate that transgender women meet specific testosterone threshold suppression requirements to be eligible for female divisions. Furthermore, organizations like the NCAA and international bodies like the International Olympic Committee and World Athletics generally enforce strict policies barring individuals with male biology and XY chromosomes from the women's category, heavily penalizing or entirely excluding those who haven't suppressed testosterone.
The primary factor was if trans women could mitigate their physical differences sufficiently to keep it fair for the cisgender women. You are indicating they can. Otherwise, the person feeling the need to become a trans woman might have to wait until they fulfilled their athletic endeavors, like Bruce Jenner/Caitlyn Jenner as an example.
Thank you for answering my questions. Now on to the sticky questions of fear. Has there been a study on how comfortable other girls or boys are sharing locker room and other intimate facilities with others either transitioning or already transitioned?
That meta-study, by necessity, culls some of the data from most or all individual studies by aggregating various findings. That methodological constraint inserts elements of uncertainty into the over-all conclusion.
Once that study's conclusions are proven to be robust, as they might be with the Olympic Committee report, how is the rest of the community -- mainly boys and girls in intimate settings -- expected to shed the fear in favor of fact?
At their base, these questions attest to the tension between individual rights and communal harmony.
Research tracking peer comfort levels in shared locker rooms highlights a clear generational and experiential divide. Data often shows that younger demographics are significantly more accepting of transgender peers than older adults. For example, a University of Michigan study published in the Journal of Homosexuality found that 79% of youth aged 14–24 believe bathroom and facility use should not be restricted based on birth sex. This sharply contrasts with broader adult polls, where roughly half of the population favors birth-sex restrictions.
When I was playing sports in school, I was uncomfortable changing around my own gender but nobody asks that question.
Legal and policy research from institutions like the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law indicates no empirical evidence linking inclusive facility access to an increase in safety or privacy violations for cisgender users. Studies actually track high levels of discomfort and avoidance among LGBTQ+ youth themselves, who experience elevated rates of harassment in those spaces.
Organizations can (and often do) resolve locker room anxiety by shifting from open-room designs to privacy-focused layouts. This includes adding private changing curtains, individual stalls, and universal single-occupancy facilities. These amenities benefit all students, including those with body image anxieties, trauma, or cultural modesty requirements. That solves everyone's arguments.
Re-assuring information; thank you. Of course, as you point our, the discomfort may be acute for those with non-heterosexual or binary preferences. Let us hope that the generational divide portends meaningful compassion in public policy.
When will facts matter?
They used the word sex several times but what is a 100% accurate definition?
The SCOTUS has destroyed all semblance of integrity they ever had.
Correction. The three Democrat women justices have maintained honesty and decorum. They have consistently voted against the six corrupt SC-R-OTUS justices on all major issues. (Although, Coney Barrett might not be corrupt, merely a religious fanatic).