JAHJ is incorrect in suggesting that the only ones bringing lawsuits in federal court on this matter are advocates of still-minor-age male athletes like Becky Pepper Jackson, Parker Tirrell and others who say they have trans gender identities and contend that as result of those identities, they have a legal right to compete in girls' and women's school sports under Title IX and the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
A number of lawsuits have also been filed in federal courts by now-adult female athletes who during their high school and college years were forced to go up against, and lose out to, male athletes who've been allowed to compete in girls' and women's HS and intercollegiate sports based on their claims of having trans gender identities.
On November 5, an important ruling was issued in one of the most significant of those cases - Soule et al v. Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference et al - that I've taken as positive sign and a step in the right direction.
Originally filed in federal court in the District of Connecticut in early 2020, the Soule case has now after nearly 5 years finally been cleared to go to trial. Many people regard the Soule case as a bellwether in this area and think it has a decent chance of eventually making it to the Supreme Court.
In his November 5 decision, US district judge Roberty Chatigny said he found it plausible that the Plaintiffs in the case were subjected to unlawful sex discrimation because they're female. He also gives a thorough and thoughtul overview of the issues at hand:
This is an action under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688, which provides, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a).
The case involves the transgender participation policy of the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (“CIAC”),the governing body for high school athletics in Connecticut. Under the CIAC policy, transgender students are eligible to participate on sex-separated sports teams consistent with “the gender identification of [the] student in current school records and daily life activities in the school.”
This case arises from the defendants’ adherence to the policy in the context of girls’ high school track competitions despite complaints by the plaintiffs, their parents, and others that two transgender girls were winning races and qualifying for higher levels of competition at the expense of biological girls. Following en banc proceedings in the Court of Appeals, the case has been remanded for a determination of whether the plaintiffs can state a plausible claim for relief under Title IX. See Soule v. Connecticut Assoc. of Schools, Inc., 90 F. 4th 34, 54 (2d Cir. 2023).
The plaintiffs allege that, during the period 2017-2019, the defendants offered sex- separated teams for track-and-field, as permitted by the [Title IX] regulations, to provide female athletes with opportunities for fair competition.
Yet, due to the defendants’ adherence to the CIAC policy the plaintiffs were required to compete against biological males who had an unfair competitive advantage, resulting in the plaintiffs’ displacement from podium positions and advanced levels of competition.
The crux of the plaintiffs’ position is that Title IX’s implementing regulations not only permit funding recipients to provide sex-separated teams “where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport,” 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(b), but “require sex-separation where male participation results in any exclusion or denial to female athletes.”
Stated differently, they contend that when, as a result of biological males’ inherent physiological advantages, male participation threatens to displace female athletes from postseason races or championship podiums, a [school or educational program that’s a federal] funding recipient must provide female athletes with sex-separated sports to fulfill its obligation to provide them with equal athletic opportunity.
this case presents a direct conflict between two interests protected by Title IX: the interest in providing fair competition for biological females, which has long been recognized as a significant governmental interest under Title IX, and the interest in providing transgender girls with opportunities to participate in girls’ sports, which [the Defendants allege] is now protetected by a Connecticut state statute.
There is little guidance to be found in Title IX’s existing regulations regarding how a court should balance these interests.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ctd-3_20-cv-00201/pdf/USCOURTS-ctd-3_20-cv-00201-1.pdf
