Girls’ Sports Should Not Require Girls to Surrender the Category

If a school offers a girls' wrestling competition, it should be able to explain what makes that category distinct and why its eligibility rules protect the students it was created to serve. An appeal to inclusion cannot do all of that work. The rules still have to make sense on the mat.

A Washington high-school wrestler and her mother have now brought that dispute to the Supreme Court. Their emergency application challenges participation policies allowing transgender girls to compete in the girls' category. The Court's docket records the application on October 2 and Justice Elena Kagan's October 6 request for a response by October 13. As of October 9, that docket does not show an order granting the requested injunction. Asking the other side to respond is not a victory on the merits.

The Washington Interscholastic Activities Association says it is following state law permitting participation consistent with gender identity and would revise its policies if the law changed. That is a relevant explanation of its position. It does not end the political debate over whether the underlying rule is the right one.

The conservative case should be straightforward: the purpose of a female athletic category is to preserve a distinct competitive opportunity based on sex. If eligibility instead turns on gender identity, officials should explain how the original purpose is preserved, particularly in a contact sport. Describing that question as inherently hateful avoids answering it.

There is an important legal distinction here. In its June decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J., the Supreme Court upheld sex-based eligibility rules for girls' sports. Permission to maintain those rules is not the same as a ruling requiring every state to adopt an identical policy. Supporters of sex-based categories should not announce a nationwide mandate the Court did not issue.

Nor does the policy argument require turning children into villains. The Washington litigation includes a disputed allegation about conduct during a match. The lower-court order included in the application records that prosecutors declined charges against the opponent. An allegation is not a conviction, and no student's identity establishes misconduct. The eligibility question deserves an answer without a social-media prosecution of either child.

What administrators owe families is a policy they can defend before a confrontation occurs. That means clear eligibility criteria, a confidential process for resolving questions and an appeal that does not depend on whose story attracts the most attention. Students should not be expected to investigate one another or disclose private medical information to spectators.

Transgender students also deserve meaningful opportunities to participate in school life and protection from harassment. Schools should examine practical ways to provide those opportunities while preserving sex-based competition, rather than treating the interests of one group as a reason to stop discussing the interests of another.

The strongest conservative argument is about the category, not contempt for the people seeking entry to it. Girls should be able to ask what their competition protects without being told the question itself is unacceptable. Officials who defend the current approach should answer that question plainly. A slogan about inclusion is not a substitute for a defensible rule.

Written byDaniel Mercer

Political Editor · Editorial Pen Name

Daniel Mercer is a conservative political writer specializing in elections, government, foreign policy, and the growing power of America’s political and administrative institutions. His work focuses on how decisions made in Washington affect ordinary Americans far beyond the capital. Mercer is particularly interested in executive power, government bureaucracy, media influence, immigration, national security, and the evolution of the Republican Party. At The Dispatch Room, he approaches politics from a pragmatic conservative perspective, separating political theater from the decisions and institutions that actually shape public policy.