When cross-country runner Madison Kenyon entered college at Idaho State University, she says she didn’t have much of an opinion about having to compete with biological male competitors.
But she began to take notice of their size and athletic differences.
“It really hit me after the race, seeing the podium and the awards and seeing this individual on the podium — taller than everybody else — and realizing that this isn’t fair, that no amount of effort or work that I put in is going to get me to the level of a male,” Ms. Kenyon told The Washington Times’ “Court Watch” podcast.
She said it was “heartbreaking” to see herself or teammates displaced from the podium by someone with an unparalleled biological advantage.
“Making the competition unfair defeats the purpose of all that sacrifice. And so, having all that experience is one of the big reasons I stood up for this issue to protect that fairness in competition and the integrity in women’s sports,” she said.
She’s taking that fight to the Supreme Court.
The justices will hear early next month a case involving Idaho’s ban on biological males competing in women’s sports. Ms. Kenyon was allowed to intervene to help defend the law in the courts with her lawyer, Matt Sharp of Alliance Defending Freedom.
Mr. Sharp said 27 states have laws restricting biological males from women’s sports.
“For all of human history, we have recognized that preserving women’s sports creates more opportunities. It is unfair to allow men into those,” Mr. Sharp said.
The issue of transgender participation in athletics has proved to be a major dividing line in the debate over LGBT rights.
Gallup’s polling finds that just 24% of Americans believe transgender athletes should be allowed to compete in sports as their gender identity rather than birth sex. That’s slid down from 34% four years ago.
Still, there are significant political divisions.
Among Republicans, 90% say they should be restricted to their birth sex. So do 72% of independents, but just 41% of self-identified Democrats.
The justices will hear two cases on Jan. 13. One is from Idaho, where Lindsay Hecox, a transgender athlete had sought to try out for track and cross country teams at Boise State University but ran into the state’s ban.
The other case is West Virginia v. BPJ. That involves Becky Pepper-Jackson, a transgender girl and now a sophomore in high school. When she competed in cross-country and track-and-field races in middle school two years ago she placed in the top three in every event she took part in.
Appeals courts have ruled against both state laws.
Mr. Sharp, Ms. Kenyon’s attorney, said it is a good sign that the Supreme Court wanted to revisit both of those decisions.
“This is a situation where the court looks at both of these situations and says, ’Courts you got this wrong,’” he said. “We view this as an opportunity for the Supreme Court to step in and course correct.”
Ms. Hecox’s attorneys argued in court filings that she has the same testosterone level as women.
“Lindsay has no advantage over her cisgender peers,” they wrote in their court filing.
They have also urged the justices not to hear the case, saying Ms. Hecox is dealing with health issues, the death of her father and adverse public reaction. She’s also decided not to participate in athletics.
The lawyers for Becky, the girl in the West Virginia case, said the amount of controversy far outstrips the actual issues.
“West Virginia’s law banned exactly one sixth-grade transgender girl from participating on her school’s cross-country and track-and-field teams with her friends. Rarely has there been such a disconnect between a law’s actual operation and the claimed justifications for it,” they said.
The justices last addressed transgender issues in a ruling in June.
The high court, in a 6-3 decision, upheld Tennessee’s ban on doctors prescribing hormone therapy or puberty blockers as treatments for children seeking to transition.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. acknowledged the passions at play, but he said the court had to give some “legislative flexibility” to states and the political process. He said Tennessee’s law didn’t violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Previously, in a 2020 case, the high court had ruled that employment discrimination against transgender individuals did violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• Stephen Dinan contributed to this report.
