LOS ANGELES — In an opinion column published by the Los Angeles Times on July 7, business columnist Michael Hiltzik argued the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 30 ruling allowing states to bar transgender women and girls from participating in girls’ sports represents a broader threat that could expand discrimination against transgender individuals.
The 6-3 ruling, Hiltzik wrote, “rolled the clock back on gender equality,” arguing that the court’s decision upholding laws in Idaho and West Virginia was based on assumptions about gender and athletic ability that could result in broader restrictions against transgender people.
Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote, “Forcing female athletes to compete against males can create significant safety risks.” Kavanaugh, along with President Donald Trump, has maintained that an individual’s sex is established before birth, that only two sexes are recognized, and that they cannot be changed.
Hiltzik also discussed scientific perspectives on sex and gender, noting that medical organizations recognize that some individuals are born with sex characteristics that do not fit typical male or female categories. He further referenced medical recognition of gender dysphoria, a condition in which individuals experience distress related to their sex assigned at birth and may seek medical or psychological care.
Hiltzik argued that Trump’s executive orders have resulted in numerous restrictions on transgender individuals, including prohibiting certain gender-affirming medical treatments for people younger than 19, barring transgender people from military service and implementing additional policies targeting the transgender community.
According to data cited by Hiltzik from the UCLA School of Law, approximately 1.6 million adults in the United States identify as transgender, representing about one-half of 1% of the population. He also cited research estimating that approximately 300,000 adolescents ages 13 to 17 identify as transgender.
Hiltzik also highlighted the case of Becky Pepper-Jackson, who sought to join a girls’ track and cross-country team as a transgender girl. Because she had been taking puberty blockers and female hormones, her attorneys argued that she had not undergone male puberty and did not possess a competitive advantage over her teammates.
The Supreme Court’s decision allows West Virginia to continue enforcing its restriction, despite arguments from Pepper-Jackson’s legal team that she did not create an unfair competitive advantage and that participation in sports could benefit her mental health.
Hiltzik further argued that broad restrictions on transgender athletes could lead to increased scrutiny of students’ identities. He cited concerns from educational experts that laws requiring distinctions between male and female athletes could result in invasive verification procedures for students.
The opinion column concluded by questioning whether restrictions on transgender participation in sports are primarily intended to address concerns about athletic fairness or are contributing to a broader debate over transgender rights and recognition.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
