Supreme Court Case Delves into Gender Definitions in Sports

On Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito questioned lawyers representing biological male athletes in the case of Little v. Hecox regarding the definitions of women and girls.

Alito inquired about the definitions of “boy or girl, man or woman” for the purposes of equal protection. Kathleen R. Hartnett, representing Idaho students, acknowledged that schools can have separate teams for students classified as boys or girls. She also emphasized the need to clarify what it means to be a boy or a girl, a man or a woman.

Hartnett stated, “Sorry, I misunderstood the question. I think to know if someone is excluded, understanding how the government defines that term is crucial. There is no clear definition in court, and we are not disputing any definition here.”

She further explained, “What we are asserting is that the categorical exclusion of men from the women’s team, based on their birth gender, often seems misaligned with national interests.”

Alito responded with a critical question: “How can a court determine if there is discrimination based on sex without knowing what sex means for equal protection purposes?”

Hartnett continued, arguing that based on statutory definitions, Lindsay has been identified as having a male birth gender, and thus is excluded from the women’s team in line with state law. She reiterated that they are examining these definitions to identify any potential equal protection issues.

Alito then posed a hypothetical about boys, who have not taken puberty blockers but see themselves as girls, and whether a school could exclude such a boy from a girls’ sports team. Hartnett implied that this scenario might contradict her argument.

The central issue is whether laws in Idaho and West Virginia that bar transgender athletes identifying as women from competing on teams that align with their gender identity amount to gender-based discrimination. In the case of Little v. Hecox, a biological male contestant tried to join Boise State University’s women’s track and cross country teams, claiming that the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act violated the Equal Protection Clause by excluding transgender women.

State attorneys supporting the ban argue that categorizing sports by biological sex ensures fairness and safety for female athletes, aligning with Title IX’s definition of sex.