Identity versus Biological Sex
While many American states argue “biological fairness” in defense against transgender inclusion, they fail to account for the historically prevalent “identity-protection” promised by the 14th Amendment and Title IX. This federal law, its full name being Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, prohibits sex-based discrimination and violence in any education or other activity that takes directly federal funding, Aimed at fighting discrimination in public institutions nationwide, the transgender crisis plays a huge role in the perpetual violation of this law — and many others that seek to protect individual liberties of this nature. In addition, the historical roots of this transgender crisis have long been in correlation with the 1972 Amendments; the parallel isn’t simply showing through because of recent conflict. Before Title IX was passed, the athletic opportunities for women were very limited and effectively non-existent, as demonstrated initially through 1970s high school sports metrics — finding that only 300,000 girls participated in high school sports nationwide to about 4 million boys. Therefore, Congress enacted Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 as a non-sports-specific law, rather than as a mandate for civil rights in activities in general.
Sports and athletics specifically have posed challenges in terms of inclusivity for transgender people, as recognized by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). They deduced that sports required a “separate but equal” framework in their initial operations, and unfortunately, they held onto this ideology, unlike classrooms that had generally let go of it. Biological differences between males and females and their correspondence to physical capabilities in sports drove this choice to perpetuate gender separation in activity. So, the historically present intent behind Title IX was to foster a protected space for biological females so that they were given the same advantages as their male counterparts.
However, while the drafters of Title IX in 1972 accounted for females who were provided that label based on biological sex at birth, gender identity was not separately considered. In other words, it was understood as part of the same category as biological sex and wasn’t provided with distinction or special deliberation. Therefore, as the sports atmosphere in the nation evolved, so have people’s interpretations of Title IX and their own comprehension of it. Many feel that it was created pertinent only to accommodate those biological females for whom it was instituted and put into place in the 1970s. However, opposing perspectives suggest that the law was instituted with a grace for the developing definition of gender and gender identity in America. The Supreme Court, in a 1996 case called United States v Virginia, decided that the “overbroad generalizations" that were common about the natural talents of men and women were unconstitutional, but the physical differences between the two were still prominent and applicable today.
While historically present debate has worked to shape the beginnings of the transgender crisis (not only in sports and athletics), a more contemporary legal battle was reignited in 2020, with the landmark Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County. Notably, Justice Neil Gorsuch (who wrote for the 6-3 majority) demonstrated in his written opinion that the prohibition of “sex” discrimination, as described in Title IX, was created to accommodate sexual orientation and gender identity as well. Based on the court’s presented logic, it’s inherently impossible to be discriminatory to a person based on their sexual orientation or gender identity without being discriminatory towards their sex as a result. While this decision seemed extensively progressive, the Court reiterated that its decision was only applicable to the workplace.
Despite this announcement, the Title IX litigation was thoroughly altered in its popular interpretations. Lower courts immediately began applying it in educational settings, such as in the cases of the Fourth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuit courts, where judges put forth that if (as stated in Title VII) sex and gender identity were inseparable components of each other, then this same inseparable state applied in Title IX. In the instance of the Fourth Circuit, which performed a review of West Virginia v. B.P.J., the court held that West Virginia’s sports ban was a violation of Title IX, as it isolated a student for treatment that would not have happened “but for” their sex that was assigned at birth.
Beyond the quick and virtually immediate adoption of the Supreme Court’s interpretation into all aspects of the transgender crisis (even though the highest Court made it clear they had instituted their interpretation for the workplace only), the movement was faced with fairly significant backlash as well. The “Bostock Pivot,” as the movement was labelled, was faced with a notable counter-movement in 2024 and 2025. Opponents like the states of Idaho and West Virginia presented arguments that suggested Title VII and Title IX were structurally different, in an attempt to diminish the argument made by Circuit courts that these two went hand in hand and therefore sex discrimination was also gender identity discrimination. The counterarguments presented by the aforementioned states described that, in the case of the Supreme Court, the decision was permissible because biological sex is indeed “generally irrelevant” in the workplace. However, they presented that biologically assigned sex was vastly important to the competitive athletics realm, citing the physical and biologically present differences between the male and female bodies.
The subsequent tension between Bostock’s overarching civil rights protection and the more traditional, biology-based “separate but equal” model applied to sports made this conflict an integral issue for the Supreme Court to address in 2026. Succeeding oral arguments in 2026 so far, the Supreme Court demonstrates its ideal outcome, which would involve issuing a ruling that prioritizes state sovereignty — but still protects individual rights and interests, understanding narrow and individualized challenges that could arise. While this decision seems cohesive and understood by the Court entirely, some conservative judges depicted slight skepticism at the revelation that Title IX required inclusion of transgender individuals (notably transgender girls) in all circumstances, especially in terms of competitive athletics, when physical fairness and safety are at stake.
Therefore, the most sound and secure path for the Supreme Court to take is establishing a middle-of-the-road approach, with a broader ruling that would either mandate total inclusion of transgender individuals or permission for a total, categorical exclusion. However, this path, while safe, would likely fail to entirely address the nuances and complex nature of the transgender crisis in the rapidly developing 21st century. Therefore, another approach that’s feasible and argued by some for 2026 is altering from blanket legislative bans to a case-by-case “reasonable accommodation” system. This is already somewhat seen in how the Olympics and NCAA committees operate, as the law can respect the historical content of Title IX and still uphold the 14th Amendment’s promise of individual dignity.
Bibliography
United States Courts. “The 14th Amendment and the Evolution of Title IX.” United States Courts, www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources Accessed January 6th, 2026.
“B.P.J. V. West Virginia State Board of Education.” American Civil Liberties Union, www.aclu.org/cases/bpj-v-west-virginia-state-board-education. Accessed January 6th, 2026.
“B.P.J. V. West Virginia State Board of Education.” Alliance Defending Freedom, 19 Nov. 2024, adflegal.org/case/bpj-v-west-virginia-state-board-education/. Accessed January 10th, 2026.
Women's Sports Foundation. “Title IX Archives - Women’s Sports Foundation.” Women’s Sports Foundation, 2010, www.womenssportsfoundation.org/advocacy_category/title-ix/. Accessed January 11th, 2026
U.S. Department of Education. “Title IX and Sex Discrimination.” U.S. Department of Education, 11 Apr. 2025, www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/civil-rights-laws Accessed January 14th, 2026.
“Office of Institutional Equity and Title IX | Promoting Equal Opportunity and Inclusion at Cornell.” Cornell.edu, 2024, titleix.cornell.edu/. Accessed January 20th, 2026.