Washington Post backs women's sports in Supreme Court transgender case

2026-01-21 20:58:22 分类：探索 阅读(351)

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Threads
• Flipboard
• Comments
• Print
• Email
• Add Fox News on Google

Supreme Court to hear arguments on trans athlete bans in women's sports

Maine State Rep. Laurel Libby joins Fox & Friends First to discuss upcoming Supreme Court cases challenging bans on transgender athletes in women's sports.

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Washington Post published an opinion piece supporting women’s sports ahead of a Supreme Court hearing on transgender athletes' participation in school sports.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. cases, which both address the constitutional rights of states to bar biological males from competing in women's sports.

Days before the high-profile hearing, The Washington Post editorial board wrote that "neither science nor the American public" is on the side of transgender athletes and that a decision could finally put the debate to rest.

FEDERAL JUDGE STRIKES DOWN 'GENDER SECRECY' POLICIES IN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

The Washington Post editorial board said that public opinion and science were against allowing biological males in female sports. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

"The Supreme Court has the chance this week to save women’s sports, allow­ing states to restore a level play­ing field for girls by exclud­ing bio­lo­gical men and thereby cor­rect­ing one of the worst excesses of Amer­ica’s cul­tural revolu­tion," the editorial board wrote Sunday.

The Washington Post denounced efforts by people to "dis­be­lieve their lying eyes" on facts surrounding biological males' physical advantages over women, saying that their efforts failed both in policy and politics.

"It’s a policy fail­ure because act­iv­ist groups pushed for policies that were far out­side the main­stream," The Washington Post argued. "About 7 in 10 U.S. adults believe ath­letic par­ti­cip­a­tion should be determ­ined by bio­lo­gical sex, not gender iden­tity. It’s a polit­ical fail­ure because those groups never really tried to make a com­pel­ling case for their agenda. Instead, they attacked those who dis­agreed as trans­phobic and sought to shut down debate. Is there evid­ence that males are bet­ter ath­letes than females? Yes, scads."

WASHINGTON POST ADMITS SCIENCE BEHIND PUBERTY BLOCKERS AND HORMONES FOR MINORS NOT CLEAR

Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., cases involving laws restricting transgender athletes, are headed to the Supreme Court. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo)

The publication also warned that broad transgender inclusion in women's sports could effectively end female athlete participation entirely, rolling back decades of progress made by the feminist movement.

"Rather than unlaw­ful dis­crim­in­a­tion on the basis of sex, the laws being chal­lenged are reas­on­able con­ces­sions to immut­able real­ity," the Post concluded.

SUPREME COURT RULING ON TRANS TREATMENTS FOR MINORS DECRIED BY MEDIA AS 'HUGE SETBACK FOR TRANSGENDER RIGHTS'

Director of Independent Women's Law Center, May Mailman, expressed surprise at The Washington Post's stance, claiming it would have been "unthinkable" until recently. However, she added that the Post's stance is largely catching up with "the side of reality."

"I don’t actually think this article reflects a shift in public opinion — the public was always on the side of reality. It reflects the defeat of the elites. The elites, like university professors and liberal lawyers, forced this lie down our throats, they’ve been called out for it, and now they are pretending like they’re discovering reality anew," Mailman told Fox News Digital.

The Supreme Court will hear the cases on Tuesday. (istock)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Nearly 30 states currently have laws preventing transgender athletes from taking part in female sports at public schools and college. It remains unclear when the Supreme Court will issue decisions in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.