"In more than three hours of oral arguments, the justices and attorneys debated when there should be exceptions allowed to broad legislation that discriminates against specific groups, how the presence or absence of medical testosterone regulation and biological performance advantages affect the legality of these prohibitions, whether sex should be defined as biological sex under Title IX, and what Title IX's allowance for sex-segregated teams means if transgender women are allowed to play on women's teams."
"Lawyers representing the students who have challenged the bans said the cases were about access to athletics for a small number of transgender people, including those who are regulating their testosterone. Kathleen R. Hartnett, an attorney challenging the Idaho ban, said her client "has suppressed her testosterone for over a year and taken estrogen," saying the Idaho law "fails heightened scrutiny" as applied to such trans women "who have no sex-based biological advantage as compared to birth sex females.""
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on challenges to Idaho and West Virginia laws that bar transgender girls and women from playing on teams matching their gender identity. Justices and attorneys debated exceptions to broad discriminatory legislation, the role of medical testosterone regulation and biological performance advantages, whether Title IX defines sex as biological sex, and the implications for Title IX's allowance of sex-segregated teams if transgender women participate on women's teams. Lawyers for the students emphasized athletic access for a small number of transgender people, including those suppressing testosterone. Twenty-seven states impose some bans. Justice Kavanaugh questioned whether states without bans are breaking the law or should retain discretion.
Read at Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Events and Jobs
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]