SCOTUS Considering Whether Women And Girls Have The Right To Their Own Sports
This was a history-making day! We appreciate all of the WoLF supporters who joined our fantastic Legal Team to listen to the oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States this morning and discuss what we heard.
The day featured two key cases: Hecox v. Little (Idaho) and W. Va. vs BPJ. WoLF filed amicus briefs for both cases.
Both cases were brought by males identifying as girls, and seeking to compete in girls’ sports. The cases really are about the rights of women and girls to compete in their own sports, free of males, particularly males calling themselves females. For four hours, we listened to a debate over whether Title IX really meant sex, what is even meant by the term ‘sex’, whether ‘cis girls and trans girls’ being separated was a form of sex discrimination (Justice Ketanji Jackson), and what constitutes a class of people that we can actually define that are being discriminated against.
While all that sounds confusing and dry, for women’s rights advocates , this was a pins-and-needles moment with potentially ground-breaking history being made. Confusing language meant to trample the rights of women and girls, brought forth by the ACLU and others arguing that gender means something different from sex, was woven throughout the hearing.
The ACLU lawyer representing Hecox, Kathleen Hartnett, refused to define “man” and “woman,” leading Justice Alito to ask, ‘How can a court determine whether there is discrimination on the basis of sex, without knowing what ‘sex’ means”?
Hartnett responded, “We do not have a definition for the court.”
This exchange is even more pertinent:
ALITO: Let's say a school has a boy and girl track team. A male student with no puberty blockers or female hormones, or surgeries, says, 'I AM A WOMAN. That's who I am.' Can the school say, 'No, you can't participate?'
ATTORNEY: Yes...
ALITO: Is that person not a WOMAN in your understanding?! They SAY they're a woman. Are they not a woman, then?
ATTORNEY: Well, I'd respect their pronouns...
ALITO: You seem to be saying the school can discriminate on the basis of transgender status! If this person is a "transgender woman" and is barred from the girls' team, that person is being subjected to differential treatment based on transgender status, right?
Perhaps this is our favorite question from Alito:
“There are an awful lot of female athletes who are strongly opposed to participation... What do you say about them? Are they bigots? Are they deluded in thinking that they are being subjected to unfair competition?”
Maybe we would have also asked: how do you think it feels for the women and girls to be told that their sex class is subject to the whims of men and boys?
It’s not just a little disconcerting to find ourselves, as staunch radical feminists, nodding our heads with the conservative judges who found it perfectly acceptable to overturn Roe v. Wade. When they ask the questions that we as radical feminists wanted to see asked it emphasizes the pain of the betrayal by legacy women’s rights groups who no longer stand for women. Neither party has women’s backs in this country, so those of us committed to the cause of women’s rights are grateful in these moments that WoLF is firmly nonpartisan.
We may be a tiny radical feminist organization, but we are undaunted by the enormous money trying to eviscerate women’s rights. Here’s a little sample of the firepower we have been up against:
(From publicly available IRS Form 990’s from 2024:)
Lambda Legal: $58.5 million
ACLU (ACLU, Inc. and ACLU Foundation): $383 million
Transgender Law Center: $15.7 million
Trevor Project: $71.2 million
Human Rights Campaign (HRC): $45.9 million
National Women’s Law Center: $41.4 million
Democracy Forward: $17.8 million
(Special thanks to our friends WomenAreReal for compiling these!)
While the hearing was underway, a huge crowd gathered out front for a rally. Many of our friends and allies were there - DIAG, WDI, XX-XY, ROAR NYC, Gays Against Groomers and the LGB Courage Coalition. Our Vice President, Margot Heffernan, gave a rousing speech, as did Riley Gaines, Tish Hyman and others.
Naturally, trans-activists attempted to disrupt the speakers, and were rather noisy and irritating, protesting that boys will simply die if not allowed to compete in women’s sports. Boys will be boys, even if they say they are girls.
The group standing up for women’s sports was larger, and undaunted. We will always stand strong to defend the rights of women and girls.
A decision is expected in May or June.
Here are links to the oral arguments.
Little v. Hecox
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-38
West Virginia v. B. P. J.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-43