When Megan Rapinoe recently went on “The View,” she went on a tirade about trans-identifying athletes supposedly being excluded from women’s sports. Namely, she <a href="https://x.com/TheView/status/2079664476786446775">posed a question</a> regarding men in women’s sports that the media has since buzzed about: “Unsafe from who?” I immediately had an answer: me.
In 2022, I was <a href="https://www.iwfeatures.com/documentary/payton-mcnabb/">struck</a> in the head by a volleyball spiked by a male athlete competing on the opposing girls’ team. The impact knocked me unconscious and caused a traumatic brain injury that ended my athletic career — and still affects me today.
I’ve spent my early 20s <a href="https://www.independentwomen.com/2024/05/24/advisory-our-bodies-our-sports-summer-2024-bus-tour-take-back-title-ix-protect-womens-sports/">traveling</a> across the country, speaking up for women’s sports. Along the way, I’ve been <a href="https://msmagazine.com/2026/07/13/trump-title-ix-trans-women-sports-girls-equality-college-university-christopher-newport-california-lutheran-university/">accused</a> of “co-opting” feminist language and have dealt with unrelenting hatred and even <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/sports/transgender-comedian-faces-backlash-mocking-payton-mcnabbs-brain-injury-from-male-volleyball-player">comedy skits</a> about me.
That’s why I was grateful to see WNBA player <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7464960/2026/07/22/sophie-cunningham-trans-comments-womens-sports/">Sophie Cunningham refuse</a> to back down when she defended women’s sports, calling it a “common-sense” position and even standing squarely planted on her original stance, <a href="https://x.com/realDailyWire/status/2080310506997305817?s=20">saying</a>, “I said what I said.”
Another accusation hurled recently at our efforts argues that women like me have been <a href="https://msmagazine.com/2026/07/13/trump-title-ix-trans-women-sports-girls-equality-college-university-christopher-newport-california-lutheran-university/">distracted</a> from the “real” issues facing female athletes. According to Ms. Magazine, we should be talking about “fewer opportunities, unequal funding and facilities access, and hundreds of unresolved discrimination complaints” from female athletes. That position misses the point entirely. I can unequivocally say that no amount of additional funding, nor an upgraded facility, would have prevented my volleyball injury.
The suggestion that advocates like me don’t care about funding or participation because we also defend fairness creates a false choice. Women are capable of caring about more than one issue at a time.
We can fight for better resources while also insisting that girls deserve a level playing field. I would even argue that those goals depend on each other.
If roster spots, conference championships, podium finishes, scholarships, and records can all be taken by male athletes competing in the women’s division, then equal funding alone cannot create equal opportunities.
Female athletes have fought for decades to secure equal opportunities under Title IX — and yes, the ups and downs of funding and participation do matter. Participation in women’s sports has gone from <a href="https://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/education/title-ix-and-the-rise-of-female-athletes-in-america/">3.7% to 40% since 1976</a>. But equal opportunity based on sex means next to nothing if girls are expected to compete in a category that is no longer reserved for them.
The fact of the matter is that Title IX wasn’t created to build nicer locker rooms or buy better uniforms. It was enacted because lawmakers acknowledged biological reality: women, who are physically different from men, deserved a category for themselves to promote safe, equal, and fair educational opportunities (sports included). Protecting that category is Title IX’s purpose.
The only thing that would have protected me was preserving the girls’ category for girls only. Independent Women’s “<a href="https://ourbodiesoursports.com/">Our Bodies, Our Sports</a>” and “Her Game. Her Legacy.” initiatives have never been about degrading people struggling with gender dysphoria — it’s been about acknowledging biological differences between males and females for everyone’s safety and equal opportunity.
Male puberty <a href="https://www.independentwomen.com/competition-report/">produces</a> measurable advantages in strength, speed, endurance, and power. That reality should not be ignored, especially if we are asking females to go up against them in contact sports. Moreover, sports are inherently <a href="https://www.independentwomen.com/competition-report/">zero-sum</a>, so even just one man on a women’s team means a woman has lost a roster spot and an opportunity to compete.
The Supreme Court just <a href="https://www.independentwomen.com/2026/07/01/scotus-snapshot-womens-sports-decision/">affirmed</a> this concept, recognizing “woman” as it was meant in the 1970s: as biologically female. States have legitimate reasons to separate athletic competition based on biological sex.
Yet radical advocates (and their media allies, like Ms. Magazine and Megan Rapinoe) continue to respond with inflammatory claims that protecting women’s sports will somehow lead to <a href="https://feminist.org/news/supreme-court-delivers-blow-to-transgender-student-athletes/">“genital inspections”</a> of girls. That rhetoric may make the headlines, but there is no factual basis to their claims.
No one has ordered invasive inspections of high-school or collegiate athletes. Schools have operated sex-separated athletics based on biological differences for decades without requiring such measures. Athletic eligibility has long been determined through ordinary school records and administrative processes.
The scare tactics are meant to distract from the real conversation.
I don’t want better facilities and shiny, bright new equipment if I have to sacrifice my safety. I don’t want more scholarships for “women” if female athletes are no longer able to qualify for them alongside their male competitors.
I’m still here fighting because what happened to me shouldn’t happen to anyone else — ever. I’ve spoken with women who’ve lost titles, podium spots, and hometown records because of this issue — and none of them were asking for special treatment. All we’ve been asking for is exactly what Title IX promised over 50 years ago: a fair chance to compete.
***
Payton McNabb is a sports ambassador for Independent Women and former three-sport high school athlete who <a href="https://www.iwfeatures.com/profile/payton-mcnabb/">turned tragedy into triumph</a> after a traumatic brain injury ended her athletic future.

Sue Bird Honored With Statue Outside Of Climate Pledge Arena

The Answer To Megan Rapinoe’s Question Is Standing Right Here

DW Opinion

Megan Rapinoe

Sophie Cunningham

The View

Title IX

Transgender Athletes

Women's sports

Wellesley College in Massachusetts is a member of the “Seven Sisters” – a group of highly-selective all-women’s colleges that was founded to give women an Ivy League education when such institutions were reserved for men. But today, Wellesley is admitting biological men who identify as women.
This is why my organization, Defending Education (DE), filed a <a href="https://defendinged.org/complaints/defending-education-files-civil-rights-complaint-against-wellesley-college-for-violations-of-title-ix/">civil rights complaint</a> with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights: because this “sister” just violated Title IX in the name of “inclusivity.”
DE’s complaint underscores the ultimate irony of the modern gender movement: universities formed to empower women have made the conscious decision to validate males instead.
Historically, enrollment at a Seven Sisters’ school was a sign of female excellence and independence. It was an honor reserved for the most impressive American women.
Today, it means being forced to forgo your comfort (and possibly your safety) because your school values the feelings of men over yours. It means mandatory sharing of dormitories, locker rooms, bathrooms, and sports teams with biological males – assuming, of course, that a boy didn’t steal your admission spot in the first place.
It’s shameful that Wellesley College has retained the privileges and title of an “all women’s” institution, despite abandoning its founding principles.
The school’s 2015 decision to admit biological men runs completely counter to its mission to “educate women who will make a difference.” Women seeking a female-only environment are being betrayed by the very people entrusted with the college’s legacy.
Our complaint notes that Wellesley College is in clear violation of Title IX requirements necessary for single-sex status and federal funding; its decision to admit biological men – and simultaneously decline admission to biological women who identify as men – is discrimination on the basis of sex, pure and simple.
And given the $12 million in federal support Wellesley receives every year, perhaps the school should have considered the impact that flouting anti-discrimination laws might have on its bottom line.
Last May, Defending Education filed an Office for Civil Rights complaint against another Seven Sisters school, Smith College, for also admitting biological men. DE’s complaint highlighted Smith College’s blatant disregard for Title IX’s protections for single sex spaces, President Trump’s recent executive orders banning gender ideology, and federal caselaw that affirms the need for single-sex spaces. Our complaint also noted that Smith College is policing women’s speech to prioritize policies that erase women – and protections for them – entirely.
We were gratified when the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights opened an investigation into Smith College earlier this year – and it’s our hope that the Department might take a hard look at Wellesley College as well.
We’ve filed these complaints with the goal of ending the Seven Sisters’ erasure of women and encouraging them to uphold their founding values. In addition to Smith and Wellesley, Mount Holyoke College, Bryn Mawr, and Barnard College also allow biological men who identify as “transgender women” to enroll and share private spaces with biological women. Like Smith and Wellesley, these schools receive millions of dollars in federal funding and commit themselves to upholding the law when they do so.
These policies drive home the fact that gender activists continue to wield a heavy grip on American public life – despite the Trump administration’s valiant efforts – and that sustained effort is needed to dismantle these policies from coast to coast.
When the gender activism wave washed over America nearly two decades ago, many major corporations and educational institutions were bullied into eliminating female-only protections and spaces in the name of inclusivity. Today, an increasing number of Americans finally recognize the truth: that this prioritization of gender ideology over women’s rights is unfair, unsafe, and illegal.
Polling by the New York Times in 2025 found that nearly 80% of Americans (including 67% of Democrats) opposed biological men competing in women&#8217;s sports, while Pew found that almost <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/26/americans-have-grown-more-supportive-of-restrictions-for-trans-people-in-recent-years/">50% of Americans</a> support determining admittance to female-only spaces based on biological sex, compared to just 26% of Americans who disagree. And nationwide, many major corporations are <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/04/11/ibm-reportedly-walks-back-diversity-policies-citing-inherent-tensions-here-are-all-the-companies-rolling-back-dei-programs/">backing away from DEI initiatives</a> and gender ideology as they sense public opinion turning on the issue.
Despite this broader societal backlash, institutions like Wellesley College remain captured by fringe activists – which is why decisive action by the federal government is needed to hold bad actors accountable.
DE’s complaint regarding Wellesley, and the ongoing federal investigation into Smith College, are designed to both protect female students and to send a clear message to schools everywhere: if you choose to prioritize gender activism over safety, fairness, and the law, there will be consequences.
***
Nicole Neily is the founder and president of <a href="http://defendinged.org/about">Defending Education</a>.

Wellesley College Admissions Challenged

Wellesley College Lays Bare The Hypocrisy Of The Left

Defending Ed

Transgender

Wellesley College

Every Supreme Court term produces headlines. This one produced structural change — the kind that will shape how power works in Washington, D.C., in statehouses, and in your own community for years to come.
Start with the case that mattered most: Trump v. Slaughter. For 90 years, Congress could shield the heads of “independent” agencies — the Federal Trade Commission, and by extension dozens of similar bodies — from being fired by the president except for cause. The Court ended that, ruling that if an official exercises the president’s executive power, the president can remove him. In practice, that means voters who elect a president now have more say over the sprawling bureaucracy that regulates everything from consumer products to labor disputes, rather than leaving that power with unelected commissioners serving staggered terms.
A companion case, Trump v. Cook, carved out an exception for the Federal Reserve — Fed governors can be fired only for cause, a 5-4 compromise that Justice Barrett, in dissent, called out as arbitrary and going beyond what the Court needed to decide the case.
Women’s sports had one of their best days ever at the Court. In cases out of West Virginia and Idaho, all nine justices agreed that Title IX — the law that opened the door to girls’ athletics in the first place — doesn’t force states to let biological males compete on girls’ teams. A narrower 6-3 majority held that constitutional equal protection likewise allows states to protect female athletes. That means the 27 states that already protect single-sex sports are on solid legal ground, and cases are already wending their way to the Supreme Court asking whether equal protection and Title IX actually require the other 23 states to do so.
The Second Amendment kept winning, too. In Wolford v. Lopez, the Court struck down a Hawaii law that weaponized trespass law against concealed-carry permit holders: Instead of assuming that a valid permit holder could enter a business with his weapon unless told otherwise, Hawaii required businesses to explicitly invite him in first. The Court said that the law effectively criminalized ordinary daily life for lawful gun owners — a ruling that should also doom copycat laws in California and other blue states. In a separate case, the justices unanimously held that the government can’t strip someone’s gun rights merely because he’s an occasional marijuana user, absent any sign he’s actually dangerous.
The First Amendment had an outstanding term as well. The Court struck down Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” counseling, ruling that a state can’t let therapists affirm a client’s gender identity while banning them from helping a client move the other direction — that’s the government picking sides on a viewpoint, not regulating conduct.
Elsewhere, the Court protected a New Jersey pregnancy center’s right to keep its donor list private from a hostile state subpoena, and struck down limits on how much political parties can coordinate spending with their own candidates. The campaign finance ruling is the latest in a series of cases reaffirming that free speech includes the right to political speech, and it will likely shift fundraising and election spending back to the parties and away from outside groups and Super PACs.
The term also delivered a landmark election law decision: Louisiana v. Callais. The Court held that a Voting Rights Act lawsuit can’t succeed just by pointing to a correlation between race and party in a district — plaintiffs now need real evidence of intentional discrimination. The Court put that reasoning to work almost immediately in an emergency order reinstating Alabama’s congressional map, an order that invoked the “colorblind Constitution” — language borrowed from the first Justice Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, and now, for the first time, adopted by a majority. In practice, this makes it harder to scurrilously repackage partisan gerrymandering claims with racial language. One disappointment: the Court left in place the counting of late-arriving mail ballots, though it noted Congress could set a firmer national rule if it chose to.
Immigration cases mostly went the government’s way, with the Court reading several statutes in commonsense, textualist terms — including a ruling that someone who is stopped at the border hasn’t yet “arrived in” the country, reaffirming that courts can’t second-guess the president’s determination not to exempt Haitian and Syrian immigrants from removal, and another making it easier to remove green-card holders who commit serious crimes. The exception was the birthright citizenship case, where the majority applied the traditional, broad meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause to cover the U.S.-born children of both illegal immigrants and temporary visitors. As an originalist matter, it was a difficult case, with both sides grappling with the historical evidence. Justice Thomas’s 91-page dissent masterfully presented a narrower view of the Clause, but even the dissenters concluded that the president’s executive order likely went further than the Constitution permits.
On the business side, the Court made it harder for trial lawyers to drag oil companies into friendly state courts over decades-old wartime production, ruling that those suits belong in federal court — a real check on the climate-litigation industry that’s grown up around this kind of lawsuit.
Not every case broke along predictable lines. In a dispute over the president’s tariff powers, originalist justices ended up on both sides — a useful reminder that originalism is a method, not a rubber stamp, and methods sometimes produce results conservatives don’t love.
The term produced a few decisions that disappointed the president or conservatives, but, taken as a whole, it stands as one of the most significant terms in memory for bringing the Court back to an originalist understanding of the Constitution. Presidential removal power, women’s sports, the First and Second Amendments, immigration enforcement, climate and election litigation abuse — the Court engaged all of it and got the lion’s share right. That’s not a disappointing term. That’s a historic one.
***
Carrie Severino is the president of the Judicial Crisis Network. Follow her on X <a href="https://www.twitter.com/@JCNSeverino">@JCNSeverino</a>

US-JUSTICE-SUPREME-COURT-GROUP-PHOTO

The Supreme Court Term That Handed Originalists One Of Their Best Years Yet

birthright citizenship

Election Laws

executive power

First Amendment

Louisiana v. Callais

Second Amendment

Supreme Court

Trump v. Cook

Trump v. Slaughter

Wolford v. Lopez

For years, the transgender movement has demanded that Americans go along with an increasingly rigid orthodoxy — adopt its preferred language, accept its premises without question, and treat any hesitation as bigotry. Women&#8217;s sports is where that demand finally ran into a wall. It&#8217;s one thing to ask people to use a new name. It&#8217;s another to ask the parent watching her daughter lose a state title to a biological male, or the coach watching a girl get bumped from the roster, to pretend she isn&#8217;t seeing what she&#8217;s seeing. Anyone who&#8217;s played sports or watched their kids play them knows there are real, obvious physical differences between male and female athletes. This was always going to be the issue where the emperor&#8217;s lack of clothes became impossible to ignore — and the Supreme Court said so, decisively.
In a 6–3 decision covering both West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, the Court held that neither the Equal Protection Clause nor Title IX stops states from reserving women&#8217;s and girls&#8217; sports teams for biological females. Title IX was passed in 1972 to guarantee girls a place in athletics, after decades in which they&#8217;d been frozen out. It took chutzpah to argue, 50 years later, that the same law requires schools to let biological males take roster spots, scholarships, and trophies from the very girls it was written to protect. Six justices weren&#8217;t buying it.
West Virginia&#8217;s Save Women&#8217;s Sports Act and Idaho&#8217;s Fairness in Women&#8217;s Sports Act both define sex by biology and reserve girls&#8217; teams accordingly — common-sense laws that got tangled up in lower courts eager to strike them down. The Fourth Circuit ruled against West Virginia, while the Ninth Circuit blocked Idaho&#8217;s law as unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.
The Supreme Court reversed both. Writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh noted that Title IX explicitly authorizes sex-specific sports teams. Under the Equal Protection Clause he applied intermediate scrutiny — the standard for sex-based classifications — and found that &#8220;safety and competitive fairness&#8221; are important government interests substantially served by sex-based eligibility rules. He rejected the idea that courts should referee, case by case, which biological males have suppressed their advantage enough through hormones to compete against girls — an &#8220;almost impossible task&#8221; to perform fairly. For intermediate scrutiny, the fact that men and women , as a group, differ so dramatically in size, strength, and general athletic ability is sufficient to allow laws separating sports to pass constitutional muster.
Kavanaugh&#8217;s opinion didn&#8217;t shy away from naming what&#8217;s actually at stake: &#8220;Sports are generally zero sum.&#8221; Every spot given to a male athlete on a girls&#8217; team is a spot, a starting position, or a medal taken from a girl. That&#8217;s not a hypothetical for Kavanaugh, who has coached his own daughters&#8217; basketball teams for years — known to his players as &#8220;Coach K.&#8221; Few justices were better positioned to write that sentence.
Justice Thomas, in concurrence, went further, writing that transgender status doesn&#8217;t trigger heightened constitutional scrutiny and that sex is &#8220;binary&#8221; and &#8220;immutable.&#8221; But the line worth remembering is the one where he names what&#8217;s really been at stake all along — not just sports, but whether Americans can be made to say things they know aren&#8217;t true: &#8220;To use language to obscure reality—to show &#8216;indifference regarding the truth&#8217;—is to lie to the public and cease to treat our fellow citizens &#8216;as equal[s].'&#8221; The demand was never just for kindness toward people experiencing gender dysphoria — most Americans are happy to extend that. The demand was for everyone else to repeat a falsehood on command. Thomas just said, in a Supreme Court opinion, that no one has to.
Justice Gorsuch added that Title IX, as a Spending Clause statute, can&#8217;t bind states to obligations Congress never spelled out clearly. He also attempted to reconcile the decision with Bostock v. Clayton County — his much-maligned 2020 ruling that redefined &#8220;sex&#8221; under Title VII to include gender identity but never purported to govern locker rooms or sports teams.
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented in part, significantly acknowledging that sex in Title IX is binary, but arguing the equal protection claims should have gone back down for fact-finding on whether transgender athletes are &#8220;similarly situated&#8221; to biological girls — an invitation to years of litigation over hormone levels and athletic advantage.
Justice Jackson, in a separate dissent, argued Title IX should let students compete according to gender identity rather than biology. She added that &#8220;West Virginia&#8217;s law forces B. P. J. to live—in this case, to play—as a boy though she is a girl.&#8221;
It’s worth sitting with that, because four years ago, then-Judge Jackson sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee and refused to define what a woman is because she wasn&#8217;t a biologist. That non-answer was widely mocked at the time, and fairly so. Now the same justice has no trouble declaring, as a matter of law, that a biological male is a girl. The biology didn&#8217;t get more complicated in the intervening four years. What changed is that this time, declining to answer wouldn&#8217;t have gotten her to the result she wanted.
This decision validates the laws already on the books in 27 states protecting girls&#8217; sports, and removes the legal cloud that&#8217;s hung over them since the Fourth and Ninth Circuit rulings. Expect more states to follow now that the Court has confirmed there&#8217;s no constitutional cliff on the other side.
But don&#8217;t expect the fight to end here. The ruling says states may limit girls&#8217; sports to biological females — not that they must. That leaves an opening for the next round of litigation: whether states that let biological males compete against girls are themselves exposing girls to sex discrimination under Title IX. If &#8220;safety and competitive fairness&#8221; justify excluding males from girls&#8217; sports, advocates will argue, then states that decline to exclude them may be the ones violating the law.
For now, though, this is a clean, important win — for the rule of law, for the plain meaning of a 1972 statute, and most of all for the thousands of girls whose roster spots, records, medals, and scholarships are no longer up for grabs.
***
Carrie Severino is the president of the Judicial Crisis Network. Follow her on X <a href="https://www.twitter.com/@JCNSeverino">@JCNSeverino</a>

Sadie Schreiner, a Transgender Track Athlete, Fights to Compete in Her Sport as a Sprinter

The Supreme Court Just Saved Women’s Sports

Save Women's Sports Act

Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that biology is real and biology matters. The Court’s decision recognizing that men and women have inherent differences in women’s sports cases is a resounding victory for every girl who experienced defeat because a boy was allowed to compete against her.
Across the country, girls are losing medals, roster spots, titles, opportunities, and privacy. The high court’s monumental <a href="https://adfmedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/bpj-hecoxopinionscotus.pdf">ruling</a> in Little v. Hecox and State of West Virginia v. B.P.J. — including a unanimous 9–0 win on Title IX — levels the playing field for female athletes and, even more importantly, affirms biological truth and reality.
Alliance Defending Freedom was proud to serve as co-counsel with Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador and West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey in defending both of their states’ laws protecting women’s sports.
Activists challenged those commonsense laws, insisting on pushing the destructive lie of gender ideology over girls’ opportunity, safety, and privacy. The resulting harm has been real, widespread, and devastating.
As we celebrate today’s much-needed return to sanity and fairness, I’m thinking of every courageous girl who got us to this point — of the female athletes who refused to stay quiet in the face of injustice, many of whom we have the privilege to represent.
Just in West Virginia, the boy who challenged its Save Women’s Sports law defeated more than 470 girls over 1,400 times and just won the women’s state championship in shot put. Our client Adaleia Cross knows the devastating consequences of laws that reject truth all too well. Not only did B.P.J. take her spot in a track-and-field championship meet, but he also sexually harassed Adaleia in the girls’ locker room, whispering in her ear sexually explicit things he wanted to do to her.
Madi Kenyon and Mary Kate Marshall, the girls standing to protect Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports law, both ran against a male athlete and lost every time.
In Washington state, a male wrestler whom the school district allowed to wrestle in a girls-only tournament sexually assaulted our client, 16-year-old Kallie Keeler.
In Connecticut, a boy took four state championship titles from Chelsea Mitchell. Selina Soule and Ashley Nicoletti lost the opportunity to compete at the state championship by one spot — that spot taken by a boy.
Lia Thomas went from 65th in men’s rankings to 1st in women’s after switching to compete on the women’s swim team. This was after testosterone suppression. That is not a glitch. That is the biological reality that no drug can make a man a woman or erase the male athletic advantage.
As a United Nations study recently revealed, more than 600 female athletes across 29 sports were defeated by men, who collectively took over 890 medals.
The bottom line is you cannot build fairness on falsehood. Policies that fail to recognize that sex matters in athletics sacrifice girls’ opportunities for a lie.
Girls’ sports should be fair and equal. Their spaces should be safe and private. When those protections are compromised, lasting damage is done.
Today’s decision is good news for the women and girls in the 27 states that chose to protect women’s sports. Now the other states must follow suit. The time is now for lawmakers, schools, and parents in those states to act. Men do not belong in women’s sports or locker rooms, and no girl, regardless of where she lives, should be denied equal opportunity.
And an overwhelming majority of Americans — across party lines — agree.
Attorneys General Labrador and McCuskey led. Every lawmaker and school administrator in the remaining 23 states should act now to protect women’s sports — or answer for why they are perpetrating injustice.
That’s because this issue goes beyond sports. When we can’t define what a woman is, every girl’s privacy is jeopardized in locker rooms, restrooms, school trips, and prisons. What happens on the field is just the beginning.
Let’s rejoice in this historic ruling that restores common sense. But let’s also stay the course in contending for objective truth and biological reality in every corner of society where false ideas and harmful policies have sought to take root. Every girl deserves fairness, safety, and equal opportunity.
***
Kristen Waggoner is CEO, president, and chief counsel of <a href="https://adflegal.org/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped">Alliance Defending Freedom</a>. Follow Kristen on X <a href="https://x.com/kristenwaggoner">@KristenWaggoner</a> or follow ADF <a href="https://x.com/ADFLegal">@ADFLegal</a>.

Trans Sports

Supreme Court Recognizes Reality, Rightly Upholds Fairness In Women’s Sports

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 <a href="https://www.iwfeatures.com/profile/the-female-college-athlete-whose-years-of-training-may-now-be-in-vain/">competing against</a> a biological male athlete who had previously competed in the men&#8217;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 <a href="https://www.independentwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/IWLC_3rd-Edition_Competition-Report.pdf">11% faster</a> than females, and can accelerate around <a href="https://www.independentwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/IWLC_3rd-Edition_Competition-Report.pdf">20% faster</a> 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&#8217;s <a href="https://www.independentwomen.com/2026/01/15/scotus-snapshot-womens-sports/">upcoming decisions</a> on Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. regarding women&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;s sports is based on recognizing <a href="https://www.independentwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/IWLC_3rd-Edition_Competition-Report.pdf">biological differences</a>. Defending that principle is not discrimination. It is the foundation of women&#8217;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 in Division I cross country.

abhernandez0530

I Am A Woman Who Had To Compete Against A Man And It’s Anything But Fair Play

College sports

A North Carolina school district faces a Trump administration investigation after high school girls accused school officials of doing nothing after they complained about a transgender-identifying male invading their personal spaces. 
The Department of Education told Cabarrus County Schools on Monday that it had opened a Title IX investigation over complaints that biological male students had been allowed to access girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms. Students in the district for months have lambasted school officials for not keeping the spaces separated by sex. 
“The Complainants alleged that the District permits male students to access sex-segregated restrooms and locker rooms for female students and has failed to respond as required to reports of female students being sexually harassed by male students in school restrooms or locker rooms,” the Education Department wrote in a letter obtained by The Daily Wire. 
<iframe style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; max-width: 100%; width: 100%; border: 0; height: auto;" title="DW Player" src="https://public.dailywire.com/preroll-player/embed.html?playback-id=NJImACtyd8qr901jiXzUj00P9jus01iozN02&amp;ad-tag-url=https%3A%2F%2Fpubads.g.doubleclick.net%2Fgampad%2Fads%3Fiu%3D%2F61914415%2Fdw.video.article%26description_url%3Ddailywire.com%26url%3D%26tfcd%3D0%26npa%3D0%26sz%3D640x480%26min_ad_duration%3D5000%26max_ad_duration%3D60000%26gdfp_req%3D1%26unviewed_position_start%3D1%26vpos%3Dpreroll%26output%3Dvast%26plcmt%3D1%26env%3Dvp%26vpa%3Dclick%26vpmute%3D0%26impl%3Ds%26correlator%3D%5Bcachebuster%5D" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Trista Ruck, a student at Cox Mill High School, said that school officials dismissed her concerns about feeling uncomfortable with a male using the women’s bathroom. She said the principal told students the issue was &#8220;too political to address.&#8221;
“Our school is supposed to make every student safe, but we get ostracized when we discuss this with adults who are supposed to ensure the safety and comfortability at school,” she said in April. “Personally, I try to avoid the restrooms at all costs, but I do use these facilities at times when I really have to.”
The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights will probe whether the district’s policies discriminate based on sex by denying female students access to private intimate spaces. 
To comply with the investigation, the department asked the district to provide documents on its policies related to “gender identity” and any complaints it received from girls about males in their spaces. 
School officials downplayed concerns from parents and students and previously <a href="https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/verify/viral-claim-that-boy-tried-to-watch-young-girl-in-school-restroom-is-false-cabarrus-county-school-district-says/275-e53d0323-7532-4438-901b-79ca4c0ceaec">said</a> it is constrained by laws, stating that “schools may not discriminate against students by denying them access to the bathroom corresponding to their gender identity.”
The Education Department investigation comes after Rep. Addison McDowell (R-NC) wrote a letter on May 7 <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/congressman-urges-trump-admin-to-intervene-after-high-school-girls-say-spaces-invaded-by-boy">urging action</a> against the district. 
“If my daughters were speaking up, I would want leaders in the community to act. It took a lot of courage for these girls to stand up and speak out,&#8221; McDowell told The Daily Wire. &#8220;There appears to have been confusion at the local level about how Title IX protections apply to girls in our schools. I look forward to the Department providing clarity and restoring common sense.&#8221;
The Trump administration said the investigation was part of its efforts to recognize June as “Title IX Month.” 
“Today’s investigation demonstrates that the Trump Administration will not stop pursuing Districts that reportedly subject our women and girls to egregious violations of their privacy and safety,” said Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey. “Under the Trump Administration, no woman or girl will have to fight alone to secure her basic protections, and we will not relent until Title IX is restored to the fullest extent of the law.”

Public shower room with shower cabins. A large, empty public shower room with bright walls. Toilet and locker room of a swimming pool, sports club and fitness center, school, college, dorm or hostel. The concept of hygiene and healthy lifestyle.

Trump Admin Steps In After Female Students Raise Alarm Over School’s Trans Policy

Female Students Raised Alarm Over School's Trans Policy. Trump Admin Now Taking Action.

Civil Rights

Department of Education

North Carolina

A Republican congressman is pushing the Trump administration to investigate a North Carolina high school after female students complained that a biological male has been using the women&#8217;s locker room, according to a letter first obtained by The Daily Wire. 
Rep. Addison McDowell wrote a <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/1036268220/Title-IX-Letter-to-OCR">letter</a> on Thursday calling on the Education Department to investigate Cox Mill High School in Cabarrus County for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/principal-tells-girls-to-go-somewhere-else-if-theyre-uncomfortable-with-boys-in-their-bathrooms">reportedly allowing</a> a boy to access intimate female spaces. He urged Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey to review a parental complaint filed on April 17 claiming the school violated a female student&#8217;s Title IX privacy rights. 
“I was profoundly concerned to learn of reports that the school is allowing biologically male students to enter women’s restrooms and locker room facilities on school property,” McDowell wrote. “As a father of three girls and one on the way, and the Representative for the Sixth Congressional District of North Carolina, I remain committed to working to protect women and girls and preserving their civil rights for generations to come.”
The Trump administration has interpreted Title IX as protecting the right of girls to access private, single-sex spaces such as bathrooms and locker rooms. 
In recent months, students and parents have asked the Cabarrus County School Board to adopt policies ensuring female-only spaces at the high school. School officials have downplayed concerns from parents, saying some claims about incidents involving the transgender student are false. 
The district previously <a href="https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/verify/viral-claim-that-boy-tried-to-watch-young-girl-in-school-restroom-is-false-cabarrus-county-school-district-says">said</a> it was constrained by a law that mandates “schools may not discriminate against students by denying them access to the bathroom corresponding to their gender identity.”
McDowell said the district must step up to ensure students&#8217; privacy. 
“It is the bare minimum for schools to ensure a safe learning environment, and schools owe students’ parents a guarantee that the school is taking every available measure to protect the health and safety of kids,” he said. “The policy that the school district has adopted is in direct opposition to these principles.”
On Tuesday, the organization NC Values <a href="https://x.com/NCValues/status/2051752454035824984" target="_blank" rel="noopener">released</a> a video featuring Trista Ruck, a junior at Cox Mill High School, who said she had seen a male in the girls&#8217; bathroom. 
&#8220;I encountered a male in the female restroom. I walked straight to the restroom, did my business, and then whenever I went to go wash my hands, he walked in,&#8221; she said. &#8220;He then just looked at me, and then went about his business, but honestly, I felt uncomfortable. Why would I want someone who has different parts than me in the same bathroom as me?&#8221;

Rep.-elect Addison McDowell

Congressman Urges Trump Admin To Intervene After High School Girls Say Spaces Invaded By Boy

Trump Administration

Guidelines at the University of Washington allowing gender-confused men to use women’s bathrooms violate federal law, according to a civil rights complaint obtained by The Daily Wire.  
A <a href="https://defendinged.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/UWashDEComplaint043026.pdf">complaint</a>, filed Thursday by Defending Education, accused the university of violating Title IX regulations that protect single-sex spaces such as bathrooms and changing areas. 
It points to university <a href="https://hr.uw.edu/diversity/transgender-resources/transgender-resources-for-uw-employees/">policies</a> stating that individuals are allowed to use facilities in line with their “gender identity” rather than their biological sex. 
“The University of Washington eschews these longstanding and unequivocal principles through its administration of dedicated LGBTQ scholarships, its bathroom facility policies that open private spaces to anyone on the basis of self-professed gender identity, and its pronoun policies that punish students for recognizing biological reality,” said the <a href="https://defendinged.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/UWashDEComplaint043026.pdf">complaint</a>, which was first obtained by The Daily Wire.
Defending Education called for the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights to investigate the university.
The complaint cites a university document called “Transgender Resources for UW Employees,” which <a href="https://hr.uw.edu/diversity/transgender-resources/transgender-resources-for-uw-employees/">states</a> individuals are “welcome to use the restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms aligned with your gender or whichever choice you are most comfortable with.” It also references a university webpage that <a href="https://hss.washington.edu/building-management/all-gender-restrooms/">lists</a> “all-gender restrooms.” 
“This presumably forces female UW students who attend class in the building to share bathrooms with male students, employees, and even guests,” the complaint said. 
&#8220;The UW is committed to following federal law and will respond through appropriate channels if we are contacted by the DOE,&#8221; the University of Washington told The Daily Wire. 
Defending Education Vice President Sarah Parshall Perry told The Daily Wire that the policies directly conflict with guidance from the Trump administration, interpreting Title IX as requiring sex-separated private spaces. 
“The University of Washington — like too many other institutions of higher education in blue states — is engaged in what can only be described as a standoff with the Administration over the meaning of civil rights law,” she said. “Despite unambiguous federal language in Title IX, its implementing regulations, and related executive guidance, UW believes that ‘sex’ and ‘gender identity’ are the same. They most assuredly are not, and the Supreme Court has never held otherwise.”
The complaint also highlights the university’s overall promotion of transgender activism, including <a href="https://depts.washington.edu/safcom/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/FY-26-Award-Q-Center.pdf">funding</a> a center that <a href="https://qcenter.washington.edu/services/engender/">provides</a> free “tucking underwear” and “stand to pee” devices.
Defending Education filed the complaint the same day it launched its new Center for Litigation and Legal Policy, which will focus on filing administrative complaints, submitting legal briefs, and tracking developments in education-related law and policy. 
Perry told The Daily Wire the center would be “dedicated to identifying civil rights and civil liberties violations wherever we find them on campuses across the country.”

Major University Slapped With Civil Rights Complaint In Trans Bathroom Showdown

University of Washington

In a<a href="https://x.com/i/status/2040955108784021774"> recent episode of her podcast</a>, Megan Rapinoe, the<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/sports/megan-rapinoe-rips-iocs-new-policy-protect-womens-sports-rejects-notion-rule-based-science"> former co-captain of the U.S. National team</a>, railed against the IOC for a decision to protect women’s sports for female athletes by requiring a cheek swab for sex screening.
This traitorous position is now a deliberate choice by Rapinoe, Bird, and others like them. Now that their professional athletic careers are over, they have become henchwomen for men intent on blowing up the safeguarding boundaries young female athletes need in sports and in locker rooms.
It’s time to recognize that athletes like Rapinoe and Bird have lost touch with reality. When you undermine the fundamental principle that women and girls deserve their own protected sports category, you forfeit any credibility you once had as a voice in women’s sports. Their own careers and platforms are entirely due to the women who carved out space for female athletes, but now hypocritically advocate to destroy the safety and opportunities they enjoyed.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) recently made a policy statement affirming that women in sports deserve fairness, safety, and integrity. They recognize that screening for eligibility in competition is a necessary step to ensure women can compete on a level playing field. There is nothing controversial about that. Nothing.
We use scales to determine eligibility for weight categories. We use drug testing to ensure fairness across all categories. We require detailed physicals and medical assessments for para categories. We verify age for age-group competition. Screening for the male SRY gene through a quick and simple cheek swab is among the least invasive eligibility checks in sport.
Rapinoe, however, took issue with this decision, calling it “really hateful.” Her wife and podcast guest, former WNBA player Sue Bird, emphatically agreed, nodding along with each claim.
Rapinoe is correct in one respect: the decision is intended to “ultimately prevent people from competing in the women’s category that they feel have an unfair advantage.” Those individuals are male. The “people” the IOC is finally working to exclude from women’s sports are men, who possess inherent biological advantages.
The IOC’s screening focuses on the SRY gene, which is necessary for the development of male testes. If you have the SRY gene, you almost certainly undergo male development. Male athletes like<a href="https://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/current/imane-khelif-y-chromosome-testosterone-paris-olympics-gold-medal-boxing/"> Imane Khelif</a> and Caster Semenya have made the rounds on public television after seizing Olympic glory and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/aug/01/angela-carini-abandons-fight-after-46-seconds-against-imane-khelif">causing physical harm to the women they </a>face in competition. Semenya’s statement that his “<a href="https://www.facebook.com/JustStraightTalking/videos/caster-semenya-my-testicles-dont-make-me-less-of-a-womanwhats-your-viewmalcolm-j/1917128098910153/">testicles do not make [me] less of a woman</a>” has been widely cited.
We now understand that these male athletes are not isolated cases but two of dozens and dozens at the elite level. This has been a major scandal in women&#8217;s sports, and one that the IOC is finally trying to make right. It’s a return to common sense and a recognition that women absolutely deserve fair competition apart from men.
Megan Rapinoe&#8217;s suggestion that we cannot figure out what a woman is is crazy and simply untrue. She knows firsthand the performance differences between men and women and the effects of sex on athletic outcomes. It was her team, after all, who<a href="https://nypost.com/2023/11/10/sports/uswnt-star-carli-lloyd-admits-to-losing-to-u-15-boys-team/"> lost to a group of boys</a> playing for a U-15 team. If professional women athletes lose to a bunch of 15-year-olds, what chance would the women have against grown men? Her former co-captain, Carli Lloyd, <a href="https://x.com/CarliLloyd/status/1722578947181830432">rightfully defended the loss</a> by noting that the size difference between the boys and the women all but guaranteed the youth team’s victory. “They should beat us. Bigger, stronger, faster!”
This isn’t hard. Eligibility screening for the women’s category is necessary. The real issue now is ensuring these protections extend beyond elite sport. Women and girls should not have to reach the Olympic level to be treated fairly. SRY gene screening should be implemented at every level.
Young girls who love sports deserve the chance to dream, compete, and succeed without being measured against a male standard. The IOC’s decision to deliver women’s sports back to women is the beginning of the end to this utter nonsense, and we’re leaving the traitors of women, like Rapinoe and Bird, in our dust.
***
Kim Jones and Marshi Smith are former NCAA athletes and the co-founders of ICONS, or Independent Council on Women&#8217;s Sports, a network and advocacy group comprised of current and former collegiate and professional women athletes, their families, and supporters.

Paris 2024 Olympic Games – Day 15 – Women’s Football – Gold Medal Match

Megan Rapinoe Is A Bigger Enemy To Women Than Any ‘Patriarchy’

female sports

San Jose State University was hit with a Title IX violation by the United States Department of Education after an investigation found that the school&#8217;s women&#8217;s volleyball team kept a male player on its roster from 2022 to 2024.
The university is now saying it&#8217;s &#8220;reviewing&#8221; the Education Department&#8217;s findings.
In a statement to <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/sports/sjsu-responds-trump-admin-probe-found-university-violated-title-ix-trans-volleyball-player">Fox News</a>, San Jose State University said: &#8220;San Jose State, a member of the California State University system, received notification from the federal Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights regarding its investigation into athletics participation on our past women’s volleyball teams. The Department informed the University of the outcome of its investigation and its findings. The University is in the process of reviewing the Department’s findings and proposed resolution agreement. We remain committed to providing a safe, respectful, and inclusive educational environment for all students while complying with applicable laws and regulations.&#8221;
The statement comes after the Department of Education concluded its investigation into the school on Wednesday.
&#8220;The U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) found that San José State University (SJSU) violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX),&#8221; the department said in a statement. &#8220;OCR concluded that SJSU’s policies allowing males to compete in women’s sports and access female-only facilities deny women equal educational opportunities and benefits.&#8221;
Blaire Fleming is a male who played on the women&#8217;s volleyball team at San Jose State. Fleming played both indoor and beach volleyball. Fleming&#8217;s background became news after multiple <a href="https://reduxx.info/exclusive-biological-male-quietly-joined-womens-ncaa-division-i-volleyball-at-san-jose-state-university/">outlets</a> reported SJSU allegedly tried to hide Fleming&#8217;s sex from teammates, coaches, and opponents.
The Office of Civil Rights said that the cover-up forced female athletes on San Jose&#8217;s volleyball team to share locker rooms and hotel rooms with a male.
In addition to the privacy concerns, there were also alarming safety concerns. The investigation alleges that Fleming spiked the ball so hard that it knocked women on the opposing team to the ground. During one season, seven all-women’s teams from other universities forfeited their competitions, accepting a loss rather than competing against a male.
When Fleming&#8217;s sex was made known to Brooke Slusser, the teammate of Fleming filed a lawsuit against the school and the NCAA for not informing her or her teammates that Fleming was a male. An assistant coach was suspended and not re-contracted after she filed a Title IX complaint over the school’s handling of the male player.
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ncaa-volleyball-player-says-coaches-repeatedly-assigned-her-to-room-with-trans-player-at-his-request">NCAA Volleyball Player Says Coaches Repeatedly Assigned Her To Room With Trans Player At His Request</a>
Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. United States Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said she will hold San Jose State accountable.
&#8220;San José State University caused significant harm to female athletes by allowing a male to compete on the women’s volleyball team— and when female athletes spoke out, SJSU retaliated,&#8221; McMahon said.
As a result of the university&#8217;s noncompliance, the Department of Education is requiring a list of <a href="https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-educations-office-civil-rights-finds-san-jose-state-university-violated-title-ix">actions</a> to be taken, including a public statement from SJSU saying the university will adopt biology-based definitions of the words &#8220;male&#8221; and &#8220;female.&#8221;  The school will also acknowledge that the sex of a human, male or female, is unchangeable, and send an apology to players who were on the volleyball and beach volleyball teams with Fleming and any players who refused to compete against Fleming. In the apology, the university has to express sincere regret for placing female athletes in that position.
San Jose State University has 10 days to comply or risk “imminent enforcement action.”
“We will not relent until SJSU is held to account for these abuses and commits to upholding Title IX to protect future athletes from the same indignities,&#8221; Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey said.

Credit: J. David Ake/Andrew Wevers via Getty Images

Trump Admin Hits University With Title IX Violation Over Male Athlete In Women’s Sports

Social Issues

U.S.

The university that produced Nathan Hale, one of America&#8217;s earliest and most revered heroes, apparently can’t tell the difference between men and women. 
A civil rights complaint filed Thursday by the watchdog group Defending Education accuses Yale University of violating Title IX and President Donald Trump’s executive order protecting women from radical gender ideology. The <a href="https://defendinged.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Yale-OCR_letterhead_1.22.26.signed.pdf">complaint</a>, first obtained by The Daily Wire, alleges that the historic institution does not take sufficient steps to ensure that women are able to have privacy in their bathrooms without intrusion from gender-confused men.
“Yale University is one of the United States’ most prestigious educational institutions. It also happens to be one of the largest recipients of federal funding of any institution of higher education in the country,&#8221; Defending Education Vice President Sarah Parshall Perry told The Daily Wire. &#8220;But despite its rich history and longstanding prestige, Yale seems content to follow the path of its woke sister ivies in prioritizing gender identity over biological sex, in apparent violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.&#8221;
The complaint was filed with the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights and alleges that the university’s bathroom policies violate Title IX, which bans sex-based discrimination at federally funded institutions. 
Defending Education wants the Education Department to step in and ensure that women have access to their own bathrooms at Yale. 
“Yale’s bathroom policies likely violate Title IX because they provide male and gender-neutral bathrooms on some coed undergraduate dormitory floors without also providing female bathrooms on the same dormitory floors,” the complaint filed by Defending Education Vice President Sarah Parshall Perry says. “Yale has converted many campus bathrooms into ‘gender inclusive’ bathrooms.”
According to a map <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?ll=41.31882761989977%2C-72.94422212541701&amp;z=13&amp;mid=19iHelKu2YL3A7smpJmerSSuVfD-Ohr4">posted</a> by the university, Yale has dozens of “all gender” bathrooms throughout its sprawling New Haven, Connecticut, campus. Some of these “gender inclusive” bathrooms are located in residential buildings. 
“With bathrooms designated as women’s, men’s, or gender-inclusive, students have the autonomy over their living arrangements and can prioritize roommate choice without worrying about bathroom location,” Yale <a href="https://housing.yale.edu/undergraduate-housing/room-draw/additional-resources">notes</a> on its website. “Students can be assured that a suitable bathroom will be accessible within their college, even if it’s not on their specific floor.”
This appears to indicate that some dormitory floors have male and “all gender” bathrooms, but not female bathrooms. This is confirmed by a “Trans@Yale Survival Guide” <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20251213175155/https://sites.google.com/yale.edu/transatyalesurvivalguide/survival-guide/bathrooms">that states</a> “most bathrooms throughout Yale&#8217;s housing facilities are gender-neutral and shared amongst students in any given entryway.”
Defending Education said in its complaint that they believe this violates President Donald Trump’s <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/">executive order</a> cracking down on transgender ideology and Title IX guidance from the administration. 
The complaint also took issue with Yale’s interpretation of Title IX and its policies toward “gender identity.” For example, Yale’s “Policy Against Discrimination, Harassment, and Sexual Misconduct” <a href="https://oiea.yale.edu/frequently-asked-questions">treats</a> gender-identity as a protected class. Yale’s Title IX office also responds to claims of both “sex- and gender-based discrimination.” According to Defending Education, Title IX should only apply to sex discrimination. 
&#8220;Yale is attempting to have its cake (nearly $900 million in federal funding in fiscal year 2024), and eat it too (by instituting bathroom, harassment, and non-discrimination policies that pick sides on the gender identity debate). Too much federal funding is at stake to ignore malfeasance and bad legal takes like Yale&#8217;s,&#8221; Perry told The Daily Wire.
The Biden administration attempted to include gender-identity as a protected class under Title IX, but was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-supreme-court-blocks-bidens-title-ix-rules-that-allowed-men-in-womens-sports">rebuffed</a> by the Supreme Court. That came after dozens of Republican-led states challenged the policy.

cti072325yalenontaxable

Historic University Accused Of Violating Trump’s Transgender Policy

Bathrooms

Yale University

Menu