This is republished with permission from the author. The original, from <a href="https://www.houseofstrauss.com/">House of Strauss</a>, can be found <a href="https://substack.com/@houseofstrauss/p-209105305">here</a>.
***
I am kindly asking the WNBA to stop generating so much news. Please. I can barely keep up. The league’s main Twitter account posted and deleted a video where <a href="https://x.com/HaterReport/status/2082709528588517869?s=20">two of the sport’s most prominent stars bet on a game they were about to play against each other</a>. A similar incident might qualify as the biggest NBA news item of the year, but it’s not even the main WNBA story out there right now. <a href="https://www.espn.com/wnba/story/_/id/49483396/storm-apologize-co-owner-confronts-fans-cunningham-support">This is</a>.
The wild scene among spectators at Fever-Storm on Tuesday broke sports-world containment and became a political flashpoint. The vignettes are surreal because it’s like archetypal NPR tote bag owners are acting like classic inebriated bleacher hooligans. But these people aren’t tilted off booze. They’re drunk on politics. These Seattle louts are so unhinged over people agreeing with Sophie Cunningham’s support for a supermajority position that it’s now helping the side they despise.
Sophie Cunningham’s comment of, “I want to protect young girls in a locker room, or young girls in sport who shouldn&#8217;t have to go against biological men,” apparently set the stage for a Seattle standoff on Tuesday. Ahead of the Fever-Storm game, protesters and counterprotesters streamed to the steps of the hilariously named Climate Pledge Arena.
There’s a state ballot measure called Washington Initiative 638 which aims to keep K-12 girls&#8217; sports exclusive to females, and it’s scheduled for the November ballot by the force of over 400,000 resident signatures. It was spearheaded by hedge fund man Brian Heywood as “not a partisan issue,” but no state Democrat supports the measure. Indeed, House Speaker Laurie Jinkins (D) and Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen (D) refused to even hold legislative hearings on I-638.
The “save women’s sports” I-638 supporters didn’t achieve a mass gathering on Tuesday. As <a href="https://www.theringer.com/2026/07/29/wnba/sophie-cunningham-transgender-women-in-sports-comments-wnba">Seerat Sohi of the Ringer argued</a>, this cohort could all so easily have been ignored. But they weren’t.
From Yahoo Sports:
<blockquote>
<a href="https://sports.yahoo.com/wnba/teams/seattle/">Seattle Storm</a> minority owner Celeste Keaton has been fined by the WNBA and suspended for her team’s next five home games following <a href="https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/storm-apologize-co-owner-comments-191134139.html">an incident Tuesday night involving a pair of Sophie Cunningham fans</a>, according to the <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/storm/storm-owner-suspended-sophie-cunningham-after-fan-incident">Seattle Times’ Percy Allen</a> and <a href="https://x.com/primetimeMitch/status/2082691122418102588">USA Today’s Mitchell Northam</a>.
The incident reportedly occurred when the two young women, wearing shirts for a brand advocating against the inclusion of transgender women in women’s sports, held up signs reading “We love you Sophie” and “Thank you Sophie for speaking up for girls” while sitting courtside for the <a href="https://sports.yahoo.com/wnba/teams/indiana/">Fever</a>-Storm game. Their appearance came a week after Cunningham made comments against transgender inclusion.
</blockquote>
I’d say that’s a loaded characterization of Cunningham’s position from Yahoo Sports, but you get the general gist of the incident. From what I can tell, Cunningham and these girls aren’t broadly opposed to “transgender inclusion.” They’re specifically against biological males in women’s sports, a stance that New York Times polling <a href="https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/f548560f100205ef/e656ddda-full.pdf">tells us 79% of the country shares</a>.
Here’s an aspect that might be obscured if you’re only reading about this situation in a publication like Yahoo: The optics are comically favorable to what I’ll call <a href="https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/how-sophie-cunningham-became-the">the non-Left</a>. The two teen girls come off as <a href="https://x.com/BrandiKruse/status/2082500178226155685">polite and well-adjusted</a>. Co-owner Celeste Keaton, who apparently berated the girls with “F*cking insane!” is obviously <a href="https://x.com/YahooSports/status/2082821382736380290">far older and also out of shape</a>. If the male equivalent yelled at girls for some different reason, mainstream journalists would freely describe this individual as “gross-looking.” So on the one side, you’ve got presentable teenagers quietly conveying their majority-backed views, and on the other side you’ve got an angry fat franchise partner verbally abusing them.
I mention this not to be mean, but to describe reality and also highlight how it doesn’t always fit conventional media narrative. I grew up on the baked-in assumption that the progressive protester represents ascendant youth and the person yelling at them represents aging decline. While polling suggests younger people are relatively more open to the inclusion of biological males in women’s sports, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/poll-americans-oppose-trans-women-competing-female-sports-2-3-gen-z-rcna203658">even a solid Gen Z majority</a> opposes the idea. One reason a teen might physically show up to protest males in girls&#8217; sports is that they, unlike a liberal boomer yelling at them, have skin in the game.
My impression is that in sports journalism circles, it’s largely assumed that non-lefty Indiana Fever fans are all MAGA GRIFTER CHUDS. These types are angry men who probably look like they just stepped off the set of &#8220;Deliverance.&#8221; None of them care about women’s sports. All of them just enjoy triggering the ladies out of mean-spirited revanchist resentment.
A dominant narrative in WNBA media circles is that Caitlin Clark has a moral obligation to <a href="https://awfulannouncing.com/wnba/elle-duncan-calls-on-caitlin-clark-confront-bad-faith-actors.html">cool off these out-of-control freaks</a>. To be clear, a lot of conservatives online enjoy using the WNBA as a piñata, but there have been scant examples of Fever fans acting tangibly abusive IRL.
So it’s quite counter-narrative to see, in the wake of Cunningham taking up this “protect girls” position, fans acting out of control from the other side. I can’t vouch for the veracity of descriptions in every clip, but multiple examples of allegedly abusive Seattle Storm fans were posted from Tuesday’s action.
The aforementioned girls were also yelled at by a <a href="https://x.com/FoxNews/status/2082627754374111450">mustachioed man who looked a bit like a skinny Taylor Lewan</a>. He said, “Security: Take the trash out.” Conservative political commentator Brandi Kruse claims that two Seattle Storm fans attempted to trip a teen wearing an <a href="https://www.xx-xyathletics.com/?srsltid=AfmBOoqv8ygnLI2iRCjssCk_zPK2jCyYI18Gz22qhGmmbaEO9ZrI-LM7">XX-XY athletics</a> shirt. Kruse posted a photo of the two alleged offenders, but I’m not linking to it. Absent video, I lack solid evidence that this happened, even though it’s plausible based on the night’s events. I am, however, linking to <a href="https://x.com/BrickCenter_/status/2082544018379219020?s=20">this video</a> of a Storm fan allegedly spitting at a Fever fan. Maybe there’s some other context here, but barring AI magic, I can at least establish that this dude hawked a real loogie.
Black Sports Online proprietor <a href="https://x.com/BSO/status/2082594185199358460?s=20">Robert Littal posted</a>:
<blockquote>
Curiously, there is no mainstream attention or visceral social outrage about this fan interaction at a WNBA game&#8230;.. The Storm, the WNBA, ESPN, USA Today, etc etc no one has said anything and it is on tape so not like someone made it up&#8230;
</blockquote>
Littal, hardly a Trump supporter, is getting at a massive double standard. It’s an article of faith in mainstream sports media circles that politically activated fan misbehavior only goes in one (MAGA) direction. That assumption arguably fuels transgression from the side they align with. I’d hazard that the people lashing out at teen Sophie fans believe themselves to be good and righteous. If you’re wholly bought in on the idea that your enemy is cartoonishly evil, and you’re generally averse to countenancing their perspective as potentially valid, that can be interpreted as a justification for abuse. These aren’t human beings. They’re just avatars for “hate.” Why not harass them?
This is how an old woman finds herself aggressing courtside teenagers during a nationally televised basketball game. She’s likely lost herself in this sanctimonious certainty, totally oblivious to how the world might regard her as psychotic.
She’s in a bubble, of course. And an amusing one at that. Quoting <a href="https://x.com/jessesingal/status/2082569631768719611?s=20">HoS guest Jesse Singal</a>:
<blockquote>
Maybe the Seattleiest, richlibbiest Seattle richlib story ever. Keaton&#8217;s actually the long-time partner of Storm coowner Lisa Brummel (est. 9-figure net worth). Keaton is a &#8220;Feng Shui &amp; Intuitive Consultant&#8221; and an &#8220;ordained holistic minister.&#8221;
As a clairsentient and clairvoyant, my main divination modality is through reading Tarot cards &amp; by empathically tuning in to the Client.&#8221; (All via LinkedIn.) This is just a *deeeeeeply* 2026-America story, when you think about it.
</blockquote>
I laughed at the silliness of her biography but also saw notes of transferred religiosity in this woman’s background. Communion with God replaced with clairsentience and clairvoyance. A crusade against heretics replaced with a vulgar sermon for high schoolers. A steadfast belief in morality undergirded by absolute spiritual certainty.
Maybe there’s no way for mainstream sports outlets to get through to a woman like this, but it’d be nice if they did more humanizing of her target. Those teen girls don’t see themselves as advancing “hate.” They doubtless believe they’re protecting women because, on the same field of competition, males have obvious physical advantages over females.
It’s reflexive among many of my peers to sneer at anyone who takes up the “save women’s sports” stance. This is somehow both a “<a href="https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/how-sophie-cunningham-became-the">non-issue</a>” and a contemptible cause. It’s “a distraction” but somehow also important enough that one must never cave to the majority. It’s simply all a pretext for being mean to a marginalized group, even if any sane person can reason out why males in female sports could be a problem.
Okay, but I-638 is a real bill, designed to curtail <a href="https://x.com/hecheateddotorg/status/2082517679559319660?s=46&amp;t=oGFkfjOaJhGL-HV3dqLoGQ">actual incidents in Washington state</a>. It’s a “for or against” proposition. There’s a shelf life on this cool kid media game of perpetually pretending these bill supporters are prima facie freaks, absent articulated counter positions. You can act like such people are “weird,” but who looked especially weird on Tuesday night, in images that went viral?
I’m not saying this sort of optically toxic progressive activity loses the midterm for Democrats, but I do wonder. The election should be a layup. The party in power almost always gets crushed, and I shake my head whenever I drive past a gas station.
But if your side keeps making cameos as loud and angry proponents of a fringe position, there’s a cost to this that even sympathetic prestige media can’t save you from. The evidence was strong that <a href="https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2024/trump-hammered-democrats-on-transgender-issues-now-the-party-is-at-odds-on-a-response/">the transgender sports issue helped Donald Trump win the 2024 election</a>. It’s not “concern trolling” to observe that digging in on males in girls&#8217; sports can deprive a major political party of power.
At first, it appeared that Sophie Cunningham might distance herself from the protesters. In response to accusatory questions, the Fever read a PR statement denying that “Sophie had any knowledge of this demonstration and no contact with its organizers.”
On Wednesday night, Sophie Cunningham <a href="https://x.com/sophaller/status/2082675804874604615?s=46&amp;t=oGFkfjOaJhGL-HV3dqLoGQ">tweeted</a>:
<blockquote>
I truly believe there is a safe space and love for EVERYBODY. Biological girls, biological boys, trans women, and trans men. Everyone is welcome at my table! You can disagree and still be kind.
Bravo to those girls for standing up for what they believe. You’ll be hearing from me soon (hearts emoji) yay for gifts. Truly embarrassing of the co-owner. Unfortunately shows the type of leader she is.
</blockquote>
I don’t know if this is purely an extension of Cunningham’s moral intuition. Perhaps that’s unfair, and I’m just too cynical. I do, however, know that Sophie has quite a grasp of optics and popularity. A day later, after looking at the scenes, she chose to endorse the pleasant-seeming teen fans and dump on the angry old coot. You could argue that Sophie Cunningham is purely being rational here. You could argue she’s surrounded by a league and media ecosystem that regards rationality as immoral.
***
Ethan Strauss is the creator of the Substack House of Strauss. He is a former NBA PR gopher, basketblogger, and NBA beat writer.

Phoenix Mercury v Indiana Fever

Sophie Cunningham Is The Moral Compass Standing Up To The WNBA Coots

Celeste Keaton

DW Opinion

Indiana Fever

Seattle Storm

Sophie Cunningham

Transgender Athletes

WNBA

Women's sports

Let’s say you ran a sports league and you had two choices in how to market that sports league. First choice: All-American, fun, inspiring, generally normie. Second choice: militantly lesbian, trans, anti-white, and the players bet on their own games.
Which would you choose?
The NBA seems to be making its choice every single day. Yet another WNBA scandal cropped up this week, and it&#8217;s precisely what you think it is.
I am an NBA fan. My son is an even bigger NBA fan. Back in the 1970s, we probably wouldn&#8217;t have been NBA fans. Most people weren’t back in the &#8217;70s, and there were a bunch of reasons for that. The NBA was broadly perceived as a thuggish, drug-infused league. They had no national TV coverage because of that perception.
In 1977, a player for the LA Lakers named Kermit Washington nearly killed Rudy Tomjanovich in the middle of a game by punching him in the face. A fan actually assaulted a referee during the 1976 NBA Finals. The ownership groups were totally mismanaged; the amount of blow and hookers wading through the NBA in the &#8217;70s was extraordinary.
The NBA was plodding. They didn&#8217;t have a three-point line. The American Basketball Association (ABA), which was its big competitor and had its own financial problems, had three-pointers and dunks. The NBA had serious problems.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ben-shapiro-show-ep-2475?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-981859" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif" alt="" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-768x128.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
So the NBA decided to solve that problem. The Celtics drafted Larry Bird. The Lakers drafted Magic Johnson. And then the entire league was built around them. They&#8217;d been huge, high-wattage college stars; Bird was white, and Magic was black. The NBA also absorbed the ABA. Stars like Dr. J entered the NBA, and the NBA decided to change its style. They added the three-point line in 1979. By 1982, NBA games were now live, not tape-delayed, and by 1983, the NBA had decided to pursue a serious anti-drug policy to wipe out the cocaine problem.
The NBA also decided to put serious focus on policing on-and-off-court violence and behavior. They were fining players and suspending them, and the NBA mostly decided to protect its stars, which it still does, which is why a lot of people will complain that stars in the playoffs get all the calls.
This is how you build a league.
Now let&#8217;s turn to the WNBA, the subsidized little sister of the NBA. It has lost money every single year it&#8217;s been in existence. The NBA basically pays its bills.
Its quality of play? Let’s just say they ain’t dudes. There are men&#8217;s suburban over-40 basketball leagues that play better basketball than what was played in the WNBA All-Star game.
That alone would be a problem, but its brand is even worse because it has become militant lesbians who are decent at basketball by female standards, but certainly not by male standards, and are simultaneously obnoxiously insistent that the only reason people won&#8217;t watch them is racism and sexism.
That was the WNBA brand. 
And then the WNBA received the greatest gift of all time: Caitlin Clark. That’s because Caitlin Clark was breaking records in college, and her entry into the WNBA meant a spike in viewership and people actually giving a crap because she was really good.
But there is one problem for the WNBA. The league is still plagued by radical political leftism that has somehow become intertwined with the very character of the league. They let the character of the players dictate the character of the league, and so the players whine incessantly about the fact that Caitlin Clark gets attention, instead of them celebrating the fact that people are actually watching their crappy games.
They keep saying that she&#8217;s not good, or that the people who are following Caitlin Clark are only doing so because she&#8217;s white and racist.
There were people who did this throughout Larry Bird&#8217;s career. There were two differences: The league rejected it, and Bird would trash-talk the living hell out of everybody and would own you if you tried to do this.
There is a large-scale trend of Caitlin Clark getting randomly manhandled. Even that gave the WNBA an opportunity, because it turns out that Caitlin Clark&#8217;s team also has a very pretty forward named Sophie Cunningham, who is All-American in her attitude and viewpoints, and has become Caitlin Clark&#8217;s protector on the court, which led to the viral moment when another player told her not to point at her, so Cunningham proceeded to point at her for a meme-worthy 22 seconds.
Cunningham knew the cameras were on her. She knew exactly what she was doing. Smart marketing. Yet another opportunity for the WNBA, right?
Wrong. Why?
Because Sophie Cunningham has the wrong kind of politics. Last week, she said that boys aren&#8217;t girls and girls’ sports should be protected from the boys playing with them, and all hell broke loose.
This is an 80/20 issue. Most Americans don&#8217;t believe that boys should play against girls. And you&#8217;re talking about a women&#8217;s sport league.
A 14-year-old high school freshman boy starting varsity at any decent public school in America would torch these ladies. That is not sexist. That is reality.
Naturally, the WNBA top voices decided to come out in stern opposition to Sophie Cunningham. That’s because the WNBA isn&#8217;t the women&#8217;s NBA; it is the LNBA or LGBT NBA.
All of that came out into the open this week. Brandi Kruse, a journalist in Seattle whom I know from my days back on a Seattle radio station, took a bunch of girls to the Indiana Fever game in Seattle, and they were wearing XX-XY shirts. They stand against men in women&#8217;s sports.
And then an owner of the Seattle Storm, Celeste Keaton — who seems like a real charmer — showed up to scream at these teenage girls.
According to the girls, she first tried a softer approach: “I hope Jesus can forgive you for what sin you&#8217;ve done.” One girl recalled, “And then she told us that we were effing insane.” Asked whether Keaton actually said the curse word, the girl answered that she had.
Meanwhile, the Seattle Storm center, Stefanie Dolson, who is 6-foot-5 and 245 pounds — which makes her the Shaq of the WNBA, except she stinks, averaging 3.8 points and 2.6 rebounds per game with the mobility of quicksand — wore a shirt that said: “Trans rights are human rights.”
Sophie Cunningham applauded the girls. She wrote on X: “I truly believe there is a safe space and love for everybody; biological girls, biological boys, trans women and trans men. Welcome to my table! You can disagree and still be kind. Bravo to those girls for standing up for what they believe. You&#8217;ll be hearing from me soon. Yay for gifts! Truly embarrassing of the co-owner. Unfortunately shows the type of leader she is.”
Sophie Cunningham is trying to play it as mainstream as possible. She&#8217;s even using the politically acceptable language here, which I would not recommend because it isn’t going to win her any points.
It is incredible that this was even a controversy. The WNBA eventually suspended Keaton for the next five home games and fined her.
But the lasting impression here is pretty obvious if you are traditionally conservative: If you&#8217;re rational in any way, if you are not a radical LGBT activist, you do not belong at a WNBA game.
They are actively alienating well over half of the American population.
The WNBA could be successful; after all, there are a lot of women&#8217;s sports that are: women&#8217;s tennis, women&#8217;s golf. (Not so much women’s soccer, which tends to spike around the World Cup and then fall apart for the same exact reasons, because it&#8217;s very important to be incredibly woke.)
But if you want people to watch your product, you might want to think about this: To which crowd are you trying to appeal? I have two girls, 12 and six. Do I want to bring them to a WNBA game where they are being preached to about the virtues of LGBT radicalism?
It&#8217;s enough of a burden for me to pretend that the games are actually entertaining and interesting. I would never allow these people to shovel politics into my kids’ brains.
That&#8217;s the problem for the WNBA: The league can&#8217;t separate itself from its politics.
For them to do what they actually need to do to become successful, they would need to acknowledge they&#8217;re totally out of step politically with the rest of America.
They won’t.

basketball_trash

The Dumbest Business Decision In America

Ben Shapiro

Caitlin Clark

Opinion

Women Sports

Seattle Storm center Stefanie Dolson wore a &#8220;Trans Rights Are Human Rights&#8221; shirt Tuesday, days after Indiana Fever guard Sophie Cunningham defended keeping biological males out of women&#8217;s sports. 
As part of a Seattle Storm promotional campaign sponsored by Alaska Airlines called &#8216;Arrivals,&#8217; Dolson posed in a pro-trans tank top on Tuesday. Several photos showed her pointing to the word &#8216;Human&#8217; on the shirt. Several photos posted to the team&#8217;s X account showed Dolson pointing to the word “Human” on the shirt. 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🗣️🗣️🗣️<a href="https://x.com/AlaskaAir?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AlaskaAir</a> | Arrivals <a href="https://t.co/IruaBJsY4J">pic.twitter.com/IruaBJsY4J</a>
— Seattle Storm (@seattlestorm) <a href="https://x.com/seattlestorm/status/2082265656586871242?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 29, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
This move comes a week after Cunningham <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/wnba-star-breaks-with-league-on-explosive-issue?author=Amanda+Prestigiacomo&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=2&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=WNBA+Star+Breaks+With+League+On+Explosive+Issue">said</a> in an ESPN interview that female sports should be protected and biological males should not be allowed in these female-only spaces. 
When she was pressed about these comments the following day, Cunningham <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/sophie-cunningham-triples-down-on-haters-with-ice-cold-instagram-post">stood by</a> her remarks, saying her position is “common sense” and won’t change based on others’ positive or negative feedback.
“I think I said what I said,” Cunningham responded. “It’s kind of common sense, and I think I’ll always believe in that. I think it’s really important to protect children, and that’s little girls who are also involved in that category. I stand on what I said and I’m going to always believe that.”
“I’m not a very political person, but I do have beliefs,” she continued. “I have morals, and I’ll always stand on those and be true to who I am, and I think people are going to take it how they want to take it. … When it comes to protecting young girls in sport and women in sport, I feel very strongly about that.”
On Tuesday, Cunningham’s Indiana Fever defeated the Storm 105-95. Outside the arena, several dozen supporters gathered to back Cunningham and advocate for a November ballot initiative barring biological men from competing in girls&#8217; sports at Washington schools.
The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/nfl-hall-of-famer-backs-sophie-cunninghams-stance-on-transgender-athletes">reported</a> that Pro Football Hall of Famer Brian Urlacher, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), former collegiate swimmer Riley Gaines, and women’s rights advocate J.K. Rowling praised Cunningham’s stance.
Unlike the Storm, which reposted images from Dolson&#8217;s photo shoot, the Indiana Fever declined to endorse Cunningham&#8217;s remarks. Instead, the team <a href="https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/indiana-fever-announce-decision-sophie-104529021.html">stated</a>, &#8220;Our players are thoughtful adults with their own perspectives and voices, and those views are their own. We are committed to welcoming fans from every background and treating everyone with respect, and that&#8217;s what guides us as an organization.&#8221;
The WNBA has long promoted LGBTQ initiatives, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/wnba/posts/bold-authentic-unapologeticthis-pride-month-we-celebrate-the-voices-perspectives/1525305948951538/">including</a> annual Pride campaigns, partnerships with LGBTQ groups, and Pride-themed merchandise. 
“The WNBA is deeply committed to the values of diversity, equity and inclusion,” WNBA Commissioner Cathy Engelbert <a href="https://www.wnba.com/news/wnba-celebrates-lgbtq-pride-month-in-june-3">said</a> in a 2022 statement. “WNBA Pride highlights our year-round devotion to supporting members and allies of the LGBTQ+ community, celebrating the diverse WNBA family and uniting people through the game of basketball.”
Almost half of the league&#8217;s players identify as LGBTQ, Outsports <a href="https://www.outsports.com/2026/7/24/24140277/wnba-all-star-game-coop-spoon-paige-bueckers-out-lgbtq-players/">reports</a>.
The WNBA currently has no active players who openly identify as transgender. Former Los Angeles Sparks guard Layshia Clarendon was the league&#8217;s first player to openly identify as transgender and &#8220;non-binary.&#8221;

WNBA: JUN 13 Indiana Fever at Connecticut Sun

WNBA Player Sends Sophie Cunningham A Trans-Themed Message

Basketball

LGBTQ

Transgender

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

Megan Rapinoe

The View

Title IX

Indiana Fever guard Sophie Cunningham isn&#8217;t backing down from the sports media outrage machine after she sparked leftist outrage over her comments on keeping men out of women&#8217;s sports.
The WNBA standout took to Instagram on Thursday, posting a photo accompanied by a saluting emoji and a simple, unapologetic message: &#8220;I said what I said.&#8221;
<blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/DbJM_axGhAp/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14">
<div style="padding: 16px;">
&nbsp;
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"></div>
<div style="padding-top: 8px;">
<div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;">
<div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 8px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: auto;">
<div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div>
</div>
&nbsp;
<p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DbJM_axGhAp/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Sophie Cunningham (@sophie_cham)</a>
</div>
</blockquote>
<script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>
The post served as the latest punctuation mark in a week of culture-war outrage sparked by Cunningham’s blunt stance on biological men competing in female athletics. In a recent <a href="https://www.espn.com/wnba/story/_/id/49306657/sophie-cunningham-finger-point-indiana-fever-wnba">ESPN feature</a>, the basketball star stirred the pot by arguing that biological males simply do not belong in women’s locker rooms or sports categories, framing the debate around basic fairness and safety for young female athletes.
&#8220;I got a lot of negative feedback about me hating trans. And I&#8217;m like, &#8216;I never once said that,'&#8221; Cunningham said. &#8220;I think that I am here to extend love. But I also think with that love is truth, being honest. And I want to protect young girls in a locker room, or young girls in sport who shouldn&#8217;t have to go against biological men.”
Cunningham’s comment triggered an avalanche of online outrage, with critics slapping her with political labels and accusing her of hostility toward transgenders. That prompted Cunningham to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-sophie-cunningham-doubles-down-on-protecting-girls-from-trans-athletes">double down</a> during a fiery four-minute press grilling prior to Wednesday&#8217;s victory over the Connecticut Sun.
&#8220;I think I said what I said. I think it&#8217;s kind of common sense,&#8221; Cunningham told reporters, brushing off the critics. She emphasized that her stance stems from personal ethics and a desire to preserve Title IX protections rather than political posturing. Pointing out that advocating for female spaces isn&#8217;t the same as harboring hate, she clarified that she wants to extend love to everyone while standing firm on the truth.
&#8220;I&#8217;ll always believe in that. It&#8217;s really important to protect children, and that&#8217;s little girls who are also involved in that category. &#8230; I&#8217;m not a very political person, but I do have beliefs. I have morals, and I&#8217;ll always stand on those. &#8230; If I&#8217;m gonna live by the love, I&#8217;ll die by the hate, and that&#8217;s just not who I am. I beat to my own drum.&#8221;
The controversy has catapulted into the national spotlight. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt jumped to Cunningham’s defense on Thursday, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/karoline-leavitt-rips-leftist-backlash-to-sophie-cunninghams-trans-sports-comments">telling</a> Daily Wire White House Correspondent Mary Margaret Olohan, &#8220;It&#8217;s even more ludicrous that you do have Sophie Cunningham, a female athlete herself, very accomplished in her own right, coming forth and speaking that truth that men shouldn&#8217;t play in women&#8217;s sports. &#8230; The backlash she is receiving from Democrats and left-wing figures across the country is astonishing. They are clearly very out of touch with the American public on this issue, which again, is an 80/20 issue. It&#8217;s common sense.&#8221;
Cunningham remains unfazed, making one thing crystal clear: she isn&#8217;t letting the media circus throw her off her game.

Sophie Cunningham Triples Down On Haters With Ice-Cold Instagram Post

Sophie Cunningham has always stuck up for her people. Her sister, her teammates, Caitlin Clark (when the entire WNBA seemed to have taken out a hit job on her), and now she’s sticking up for something even bigger: women.
The basketball star turned viral sensation just threw the girls a bone, saying in a sprawling <a href="https://www.espn.com/wnba/story/_/id/49306657/sophie-cunningham-finger-point-indiana-fever-wnba">ESPN</a> feature that she wants to “protect young girls in a locker room, or young girls in sport who shouldn&#8217;t have to go against biological men.”
There it is. Time for the WNBA to get big mad.
And of course the media will follow suit, deriding her indefinitely, like the Washington Post just did. Its latest headline reads: “WNBA player Sophie Cunningham won’t stop talking about trans athletes.”
No, my friends. You won’t stop talking about trans athletes.
She shouldn’t even have to say that &#8220;Biological men” don’t belong in a girl’s locker room. In fact, that used to be a redundant phrase, not a controversial one. But somebody had to say it aloud, because the feminists who were supposed to be saying it wandered off years ago, some chasing climate change, some chasing a different gender. So thank God for Sophie Cunningham. The 29-year old Indiana Fever guard, Missouri native, and Amazonian talent is apparently the last woman standing willing to state the obvious.
She’s not just the right messenger; she’s the perfect one.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
😂🔥 Sophie Cunningham’s latest Instagram post is captioned: “I said what I said.”
She seriously gives ZERO f’s. 🤣 <a href="https://t.co/a5QC3KgDss">pic.twitter.com/a5QC3KgDss</a>
— Gina Milan (@ginamilan_) <a href="https://x.com/ginamilan_/status/2080374365707763781?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 23, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
This is who she’s always been. Growing up in Columbia, Missouri, Cunningham was clocking opposing players in rec-league before she hit double digits, avenging her older sister Lindsey the minute someone dared to even look at her funny. “If you let people walk all over you, they’re going to,” she says. “It’s just in my blood. You’re not gonna mess with my people.”
I like her. As an older sister, I can attest that claws don’t come out quicker than when your baby sissy gets hurt.
She carried that maternal instinct through four years at Mizzou, dragging a program that hadn’t sniffed the NCAA Tournament in nearly a decade back into it, four years running, and picked up a reputation for being seriously spunky along the way. South Carolina fans wanted her dead, literally. “Which is fine,” she said. Because like grandma, like mother, like daughter, she has thick skin.
She doesn’t care if she pisses people off.
This instinct came in handy last year when Jacy Sheldon poked Caitlin Clark in the eye, and Cunningham responded by putting Sheldon in a headlock on national television. She went viral for defending the only female WNBA player most people could name. Then did it again with a 22-second finger <a href="https://www.facebook.com/BlackIndyLIVE/videos/one-of-the-funniest-moments-in-sports-right-now-didnt-come-from-a-game-winning-s/3180318988844573/">point</a> and glare at DeWanna Bonner that turned into one of the biggest sports memes of the year.
It was glorious. The kind of silent fury I know intimately, the same look I give my sisters the second one of my tops goes missing off the hanger. No words, just accusation, thick enough to choke on. (We go from lovers to fighters real fast.)
One finger, twenty-two seconds, and an entire arena understood exactly what she meant. She never said a word. She didn&#8217;t have to. The point said it for her: touch my girl again and see what happens.
Clark has spent a season and a half getting hunted by bloodthirsty opponents while the league’s officiating crew developed a sudden case of Helen Keller the minute the star was fouled. Cunningham noticed, and Cunningham cared. So she did something about it. Now the same protective instinct that got Sheldon a headlock and Bonner a very long staredown has widened its aperture. She’s now going to bat for young girls and female athletes, and it means everything.
This woman became ubiquitous almost overnight. A woman who was a solid but unspectacular role player for six seasons in Phoenix is now an Adidas athlete with her own signature shoe dropping tomorrow, a Ring spokeswoman, a UFC ring girl, and reportedly one of the highest-earning names in the league that, until last year, most Americans couldn’t have named two players from. Her Google search numbers spiked 800% after the Sheldon situation. Her TikTok and Instagram followings are in the millions, and it happened because she was willing to be exactly, unapologetically herself in a landscape that has spent years punishing those who step out of line.
Which is what makes what she said in an ESPN profile, in the career sense, extremely dangerous. Telling the outlet that young girls in sports shouldn’t have to compete against biological men should be grounds for applause. Instead, it’s a liability.
But thankfully, she’s <a href="https://x.com/RomeovilleKid/status/2080069445364433144/video/1">doubling down. 
</a>
“I said what I said,” she told reporters before Wednesday’s game against Connecticut. “I think it&#8217;s kind of common sense. I think it&#8217;s really important to protect children, and that&#8217;s little girls who are also involved in that category. I stand on what I said.&#8221;
Bingo. Give her the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Because that was brave.
Honestly, she has more to lose than almost anyone in the league right now: the shoe deal, the brand partnerships, the goodwill of a locker room culture, her spot on the team. She’s risking all of it for a sentence most Americans agree with, but almost no professional athlete will say.
The WNBA, meanwhile, has spent two years alternately ignoring and resenting the two players filling its arenas. It resents Clark for being too good and too popular. Now it gets to resent Cunningham for being too honest. Quite the business decision, icing out the only two names we know!
(It’s not personal. We didn’t know a single U.S. Men’s soccer player before the World Cup, either.)
What Sophie Cunningham is saying is correct. It should not be controversial. But women across the country are glad someone with as much to lose as she does is saying it regardless. Because for some reason, the liberal overlords and woke warriors would sacrifice safety and fairness for mental illness inclusion every time, if unchecked.
If we don&#8217;t stick up for each other, no one will. And Cunningham&#8217;s whole life has been proof that she doesn&#8217;t wait around for permission to protect her people. She didn&#8217;t wait for Sheldon. She didn&#8217;t wait for Bonner. She&#8217;s not going to wait for a press release from the league office, either.
Eat it, WNBA. Or you will go back to being just as unpopular as the World Cup before June.

Golden State Valkyries v Indiana Fever

Caitlin Clark’s Bodyguard Is Now Fighting For Us

ESPN

The White House came to the defense of WNBA star Sophie Cunningham Thursday after the Indiana Fever guard faced criticism for saying that men should not compete in women’s sports or share women’s locker rooms.
When asked about the issue by Daily Wire White House Correspondent <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/author/mary-margaret-olohan">Mary Margaret Olohan</a>, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said President Donald Trump is aware of Cunningham’s comments and shares her concerns about protecting female athletes.
“I don’t believe he has reached out to her,” Leavitt said when asked whether Trump had contacted Cunningham. “I know he is following the story.”
Leavitt said the backlash against Cunningham demonstrated what she described as a disconnect between leftist activists and the broader American public. 
“This is something the president feels strongly about as well, and the American people do too,” Leavitt said. “That men should not be playing in women’s sports. It’s completely ludicrous that anyone could support that.”
“It’s even more ludicrous that you do have Sophie Cunningham, a female athlete herself, very accomplished in her own right, coming forth and speaking that truth that men shouldn’t play in women’s sports,” she continued.
Leavitt called the criticism Cunningham has received “astonishing” and argued that the administration’s position reflects widespread public opinion.
“They are clearly very out of touch with the American public on this issue, which again is an 80-20 issue,” Leavitt said. “It’s common sense. It’s rooted in basic biological fact that men should not be competing against women on playing fields across the country.”
Cunningham, who has become one of the WNBA’s most recognizable players since joining the Indiana Fever, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/wnba-star-breaks-with-league-on-explosive-issue">said</a> in an interview with ESPN earlier this week that she felt compelled to speak out about biological differences in sports despite backlash from critics who accused her of being anti-transgender. 
“I got a lot of negative feedback about me hating trans. And I’m like, ‘I never once said that,’” Cunningham said. “I think that I am here to extend love. But I also think with that love is truth, being honest.”
Cunningham said her concern was protecting female athletes, particularly young girls. “I want to protect young girls in a locker room, or young girls in sport who shouldn’t have to go against biological men,” she said.
The comments drew criticism online, with some labeling the Missouri native as a conservative or “MAGA Barbie,” a characterization Cunningham rejected. “I really am right in the middle [politically],” Cunningham said, adding that she agrees and disagrees with positions on both sides of the political spectrum.
Cunningham’s comments come as the WNBA and its players’ union have taken a different position on transgender inclusion. The WNBA Players Association has previously voiced opposition to restrictions on transgender participation in sports and pledged support for transgender athletes.
The Fever guard has also drawn attention in recent weeks for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/wnba-star-sophie-cunningham-wont-diss-trump-after-white-house-meme">refusing to join criticism</a> of President Trump after the White House used a viral clip of her pointing at an opponent during a game as a social media meme.
When asked about the White House using the clip, Cunningham said she viewed it as part of a broader internet trend. “Everyone around the world is posting it, every company has done it,” Cunningham said. “They’re just the ones also to get on board and I don’t really think twice about it.”

GettyImages-2280043385

Karoline Leavitt Rips Leftist Backlash To Sophie Cunningham’s Trans Sports Comments

Indiana

Karoline Leavitt

The Daily Wire

Trump Administration

White House

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

Our Founding Fathers would not have recognized today’s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-protects-womens-sports-in-landmark-ruling">Supreme Court ruling</a>, which upheld bans on transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports. After many pen strokes on parchment, what would later become the most powerful nation the world has ever seen laid its foundation on one word: liberty.
Liberty is the means to pursue happiness, and thus we were given the Declaration’s most famous phrase. But the Declaration doesn’t promise happiness; it protects its pursuit. Liberty never meant “I get whatever I want.” It has always meant “I am free until that freedom unjustly burdens or harms someone else.” Liberty must be balanced with responsibility. And that’s why today’s decision isn’t simply about sports. It’s about whether one person’s identity can override another’s rights.
The nation’s highest court didn’t create a new principle — it reaffirmed an old one. Rights often conflict. When they do, justice must prevail. Girls deserve equal opportunity, privacy, safety, and fair competition. And no one’s liberty can be protected by a society that refuses to acknowledge reality.
I’m not a founding father, but I am a girl dad. And every dad understands this instinctively. I don’t hate boys (I have two sons). I simply love my daughters. They deserve to compete fairly for scholarships and championships without having to share a bathroom with a boy. Liberty does not permit another child to take their opportunities. One of their classmate’s freedoms can’t erase their rights.
But there is another victim in this debate. The Left likes to claim that conservatives hate transgender individuals. I certainly don’t. I treat each one I meet with the same dignity I afford others. I believe many are suffering, and political slogans only fail them. You can despise an ideology without despising the person trapped inside it.
Where else in society do we not offer healing to those who are suffering? This is where “truth” gets in the way. We now hear phrases on debate stages such as “my truth” and “your truth.” But truth isn’t subjective. And truth is often framed as the opposition to compassion. But truth makes compassion possible. Without an honest diagnosis, there can never be real treatment.
We don’t buy the alcoholic a beer. We help him find a rehab facility. We don’t tell anorexic people to lose another twenty pounds. We help them shift their perception. A compassionate doctor doesn’t hide a diagnosis. He delivers the truth because that is the first step in the healing process. In every example, pursuing the former remedy results in greater suffering. The most compassionate thing we can do as Americans is help our neighbors reconcile with reality rather than conform to their suffering.
But it is the former approach that our media and corporations continue to employ. When ESPN reports that the Supreme Court “upheld state laws barring transgender girls and women from playing on school athletics teams,” or that dozens of states “have adopted bans on female transgender athletes,” it is rejecting the compassionate truth. “Transgender girls” and “female transgender athletes” are boys. When one sees his identity confirmed by our most prominent institutions, it affirms “his truth.”
Instead of asking, “How do we help people become comfortable in the bodies God blessed them with?” these institutions ask, “How do we persuade everyone else to participate in the identity they’ve adopted?” Affirmation is never treatment.
This is where conservatives have a tremendous opportunity to not just be known as the defenders of truth but as the people most willing to help those living through this struggle. It is well known how the Left panders to groups like this (and others) to win votes. But winning someone’s identity isn’t the same as winning the person. And there are a lot of hurting people.
But, like everything, this transcends politics. The Supreme Court shouldn’t have to fix natural truths. In fact, it should never make it past the dinner table. It should never make it out of the Church walls. It should never make it to the school pickup line. Parents first, but pastors, teachers, and citizens alike can play a role in identifying, helping, responding, and intervening. It’s the compassionate thing to do.
I want my daughters to inherit an America where girls can be girls — fairly. I also want every young person struggling with their gender to get the appropriate help. Washington, Jefferson, and Madison gifted us a nation built on ordered liberty, not limitless self-definition. The challenge before us is not choosing between truth and compassion but refusing to surrender either in our pursuit of happiness.
***
Gates Garcia is the host of the YouTube show and podcast &#8220;We The People.&#8221; Follow him on Instagram and X @GatesGarciaFL.

A girl holds the Transgender Pride flag during the pride

American Daughters Should Inherit A Country Where Girls Can Be Girls — Fairly

female sports

gender dysphoria

Liberty

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

Menu