If the reason given for failing to find against CT high school ‘inclusivity’ standards is “the four cisgender athletes lacked standing to sue in part because their claims that they were deprived of wins, state titles and athletic scholarship opportunities were speculative.” then surely the next lawsuit must include plaintiffs who finished second — hard to argue the harm is speculative when you’d have won but for the one boy in front of you…
Also this ‘cisgender’ word has no place in the world. Not by the courts, the lawyers, or by those reporting on the topic.
You don’t make a strange new word for people with two arms just because some folks have decided to live as one-armed people (regardless of whether or not they actually hack of their arms). You don’t need a special word to describe how people were born and how more than 99.9% of people have behaved forever.
There are women athletes and there are male athletes pretending (usually badly) to be women. The use of new words enables the whole charade. Stick to the words that have demonstrable concrete meanings and watch the problem solve itself.