June 23 marked the 54th anniversary of Title IX, a law whose passage deserves a moment to reflect on what this landmark accomplished.
For more than five decades, Title IX has expanded opportunities for generations of women and girls in education and athletics. It created pathways that previous generations could only dream of. Because of Title IX, millions of young women have had the opportunity to compete, earn scholarships, develop leadership skills, and pursue excellence on a level playing field.
I am one of those women.
As a former Division I track and field athlete, I dedicated years of my life to pursuing athletic success. Like so many female athletes, I woke up before sunrise for practice, sacrificed social events, trained through injuries, and pushed myself physically and mentally to compete at the highest level. Those sacrifices paid off when I won the Big Sky Conference championship in the 800-meter and set my sights on even greater goals.
Then, during my final year of eligibility, I learned I would be competing against a biological male athlete who had previously competed in the men’s category. Suddenly, the reality of competition changed.
Athletes are taught to overcome obstacles. If someone is faster, you train harder. If someone is stronger, you improve your technique. But no training program can eliminate biological differences between males and females. Males can run approximately 11% faster than females, and can accelerate around 20% faster than females. No amount of determination or additional hours of training can erase the physical advantages that Title IX recognized when it created separate athletic categories in the first place.
This is why the Supreme Court’s upcoming decisions on Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. regarding women’s sports matters so much.
At its core, the question before the Court is not whether every individual deserves dignity and respect. They do. The question is whether female athletes will continue to be a protected category in which success is determined by talent, discipline, and hard work rather than by biological advantages.
When Congress passed Title IX in 1972, lawmakers understood that equal opportunity did not mean identical treatment. Women’s sports were created precisely because sex-based differences matter in athletic competition. Without separate categories, female athletes would lose opportunities to compete, earn scholarships, win championships, and break records.
That reality has not changed. Therefore, the Supreme Court should easily be able to come to a unanimous conclusion — biological reality does exist.
Supporters of allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports often frame the issue as one of inclusion. But inclusion cannot come at the expense of fairness. Asking female athletes to surrender opportunities that Title IX was designed to protect is not advancing women’s rights — it is diminishing them.
For years, many female athletes have remained silent because speaking out carries consequences. We have been told that raising concerns about fairness makes us intolerant or discriminatory. Yet the very existence of women’s sports is based on recognizing biological differences. Defending that principle is not discrimination. It is the foundation of women’s athletics.
To me, Title IX means opportunity, equality, and empowerment. Through track, I found my confidence, developed leadership skills, and discovered my voice. I am forever grateful for the protections this law provides, ensuring that women like me can thrive both on and off the field.
As we celebrate another year of Title IX, we should remember why the law was necessary in the first place. Women fought for decades to gain access to athletic opportunities. They fought for scholarships, facilities, coaching resources, and the chance to compete against one another on fair terms.
Those hard-won gains deserve protection.
The Supreme Court now has an opportunity to reaffirm a simple principle: women deserve their own space in sports. Not because we are less capable, but because equal opportunity requires fair competition.
That was the promise of Title IX 54 years ago. It should remain a promise we keep.
***
Linnea Saltz is an Independent Women ambassador and former NCAA track and field athlete. During her time at Southern Utah University, she was forced to compete against the first male athlete to compete in Division I cross country.
.png)
.png)
