In a decision split along ideological lines yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state bans on trans-identified boys and men competing in girl’s and women’s sports were Constitutionally legal. Although the judges were unanimous in arguing that those laws did not violate Civil Rights laws (Title IX that prohibits sex discrimination in education), they split 6-3 on the crucial issue of whether those bans were Constitutional. In other words, the judges ruled unanimously that the bans were permissible, but three dissented from the view that bans were constitutional. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the Court’s majority opinion, while the dissenters were Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
The full decision is here, and here’s an excerpt from the SCOTUSblog written by Amy Howe:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that states can exclude transgender athletes from women’s and girls’ sports teams. The justices ruled unanimously that laws enacted by Idaho and West Virginia do not violate federal civil rights laws, but they divided over whether the West Virginia law violates the Constitution, at least with regard to the athlete in the case before the court.
In his 29-page opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that “[c]onsistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, we hold that the States may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females. They may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex. The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in an opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, contended that “the majority extends great sympathy to those it favors: the young cisgender girls and women who play sports. I share that sympathy. Playing sports can lead to benefits that are immeasurable, and many are understandably invested in ensuring that competition stays fair and safe. Because the majority, however, inflicts a hardship on those it disfavors without giving them the fair and full opportunity the Constitution requires to litigate their contentions, I respectfully dissent.”
The court’s decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox came just over a year after the Supreme Court, also by a vote of 6-3, upheld a Tennessee law banning the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy by transgender teenagers.
Tuesday’s ruling centers on two laws that limit participation on women’s and girls’ teams. Idaho enacted the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act in 2020. The law bars transgender women and girls from participating on any women’s and girls’ sports teams in public schools, from elementary school through college. Idaho was the first state to pass such a law; since then, 25 other states have enacted similar bans.
The West Virginia Legislature passed that state’s law, known as the Save Women’s Sports Act, in 2022. The law prohibits transgender women and girls from participating on women’s and girls’ sports team in public secondary schools and colleges.
There are two challengers in two separate cases, which were argued on the same day in January. One challenger is Lindsay Hecox, who filed this lawsuit because she wanted to try out for the women’s track and cross-country teams at Boise State University in Idaho. Hecox did not make the NCAA teams at BSU but competed in women’s soccer at the club level.
The other challenger is Becky Pepper-Jackson, identified in court filings only as B.P.J., a 15-year-old high school student who has publicly identified as female since the third grade. Pepper-Jackson takes medicine to stave off the onset of male puberty and has also begun to receive hormone therapy with estrogen. Pepper-Jackson’s mother, Heather Jackson, went to federal court in West Virginia when she learned that her state’s law would bar Pepper-Jackson from participating on the girls’ middle school sports teams.
Tuesday’s decision left lots of questions unresolved, however. Can states ban transgender kids from playing sports in grammar school, when boys and girls routinely play on the same teams? And when it comes to high school or college, what about club sports, and recreational leagues, as opposed to varsity sports?
At present, 27 U.S. states ban trans-identified boys or men from participating as female athletes, and all polls show that a majority of Americans favor these laws. (This suggests that more states will pass them now that they know the bans can pass legal muster) A 2025 Pew Poll, for instance, showed that 66% of Americans favor or strongly favor requiring transgender athletes to compete on the teams that match their sex “assigned” (actually, ‘recognized’) at birth. At the same time, 56% of Americans “express support for policies aimed at protecting trans people from discrimination in jobs, housing and public spaces.”
I am with the majority of American on both of these questions. I feel strongly that trans people should be protected from discrimination in the areas listed above. and more, and have said such repeatedly. On the other hand, I have opposed allowing trans-identified males to participate in women’s sports (grade-school sports is still an open question for me) because of the evidence that pre-puberty boys have athletic advantages over pre-puberty girls of the same age, along with with the evidence that trans-identified males who have taken cross-sex hormones or puberty blockers retain athletic advantages over biological females in nearly all metrics important in winning. Likewise, I oppose confining trans-identified males in women’s prisons (this is another tough one, as they also can be attacked in men’s prisons) or forcing a women who’s been raped or abused to have a counselor who is a biological male.
Those are three cases in which there is a conflict of “rights” and interests, and a fair adjudication of these conflicts seems to me to require segregation of spaces for biological women alone. With regard to athletics, I’ve discussed on this site several solutions for trans-identified males, including an “other” league or allowing them to compete in the “men’s” category. No solution is perfect, but the solution that allows biological men to compete against women is palpably unfair to women, and (to me) that trumps any “rights” of men to compete against women. But even this stand has led some to demonize me; I was, for example, publicly demonized as “anti-trans” by the head of my department’s DEI committee.
It’s disappointing but predictable that the ACLU (Senior Counsel Joshua A. Block of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project) argued before the Court to overturn the laws. And it’s also predictable that the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) has characterized the decision as “religiously motivated” (click on their announcement below) and decried it on those grounds) but also argued that the ruling is “anti trans”. In fact, the FFRF has become a politically “progressive” organization that will try to find a Christian nationalist motive behind any decision they find ideologically unpalatable.
Yes, certainly some people who oppose trans-identified males competing against girls and women do have religious motivations. But I don’t. My motivations involve considerations of fairness, and surely many of the the two-thirds of Americans who agree with me do so on grounds not of Christian nationalism, but of fairness.
A quote from the FFRF announcement (bolding is mine):
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling today against transgender students in two consolidated cases will cause immediate and lasting harm to vulnerable children across the country.
The cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., challenged Idaho and West Virginia laws barring transgender students from girls’ and women’s sports teams in public schools and colleges. In upholding the bans, the court accepted sweeping generalizations about sex and gender while disregarding the real-world impact on individual students.
“This decision confirms what was evident at oral argument: These laws are not about fairness in sports, but about enforcing a particular religious ideology through state power,” says Deputy Legal Director Liz Cavell. “Public schools should be places of inclusion and equal opportunity, not testing grounds for religious dogma that harms children.”
FFRF notes that both cases were advanced with the direct involvement of Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian nationalist legal organization that has made restricting LGBTQ+ rights a central part of its mission. ADF attorneys represented and supported Idaho and West Virginia throughout the litigation, underscoring that these cases are part of a broader religious campaign rather than a genuine effort to regulate athletics.
In its decision, the court adopted the states’ framing that athletic eligibility must be determined solely by sex assigned at birth, rejecting arguments grounded in medical evidence. The majority minimized the relevance of gender identity and dismissed evidence showing that many transgender girls, particularly those who have undergone estrogen-driven puberty, do not possess the athletic advantages the laws purport to address.
FFRF warns that although the court framed its analysis as one of statutory interpretation and equal protection, the ruling will inevitably be embraced by religious organizations that have spent years seeking to codify their theological views about sex and gender into civil law. The decision removes an important constitutional safeguard for transgender students while advancing a legal agenda long championed by religious-right advocacy groups.
. . . FFRF notes that support for restrictions on LGBTQ+ rights is highest among the country’s most religious populations, while religiously unaffiliated Americans consistently express the strongest support for LGBTQ+ equality. Acceptance drops sharply among evangelical Protestants and frequent churchgoers. Religious beliefs have historically been used to justify discriminatory laws, from bans on interracial marriage to the criminalization of same-sex relationships, and now reappear in legislation targeting transgender youth.
It goes on, but it’s misguided because it completely ignores the problem of safeguards for biological women, peppering the FFRF’s statement with frequent references to Christian nationalism and religion. As I said, for many Americans this is not the point nor the motivation. For me (and I suspect most other people), this ruling is not a wedge to demolish trans rights, but a buttress to support women’s rights.
Who cares? If the ruling stands up on statuary interpretation and equal protection, following both the letter and spirit of Title IX, then the “real world impact on individual students” (ie boys who mentally reinvented themselves as girls will be sad) isn’t the point.
It’s like saying that atheist arguments against the existence of God should be swept away because religion gives some people comfort. Argumentum ad misericordiam.
I am certainly celebrating this ruling and hope that we in Australia have some similar moment of clarity soon. I have had several take home messages. The impact on women’s dignity, safety and achievement, of allowing male bodied boys and men to take part in women’s sports has not been considered by many. I note that many commentators display a dogmatic zeal for ignoring any facts that might counter their narrative that including transgender women in female sports poses no risk to women or such minimal risk that women are complaining needlessly. Many of the trans commentators (and some supporters) seem to have an excessively emotional response, rather than a rational one, and seem to think that their feelings carry the same weight as facts or reasoned thinking. This in turn, leads me to think that transitioning or pandering to this idea may somehow delay maturation of reasoning. There also seems to be an element of narcissism in which these transgender athletes are unable to consider the rights or experience of the women and girls whose spaces they are entering.
I can only applaud Brett Kavaunagh (not my ideal judge…) for his quote from Pieper “To use language to obscure reality—to show “indifference regarding the truth”— is to lie to the public and cease to treat our fellow citizens “as equal[s].” J. Pieper, Abuse of Language Abuse of Power 17, 21 (1992). Much of the language used in this argument is untruthful and designed to obfuscate – “assigned at birth” used by Ketanji Brown Jackson being an example. thanks for posting this.
Oh Mr. Monaghan. I’m a TERFY Aussie American. I like Justice Brett K.’s opinion.
But in Oz, currently troonery runs the show, particularly in my birth state of Victoria which is arguably the most “pro-trans” jurisdiction in the known universe, regrettably.
I’ve been interested and involved in this fight for many years, long before it destroyed my family in Oz. Which was, naturally, regrettable. But reality is more important I think.
cheers mate!
D.A
NYC
Hi, I also liked his opinion. I’m so sorry that you’ve been affected by this madness. Hoping that we will prevail.
Yes, Victoria had problems recently with male prisoners identifying as female being transferred to a female prison and sexually abusing women there. The State government felt the political pressure to modify their policy but got tremendous pushback from the public service who seem captured by trans ideology.
Meanwhile the Greens political party seem to be following Grata Thunbergs lead and embracing social justice ahead of the environment agenda. They even expelled the co-founder of the party over trans issues.
The fact that some people who object to trans women in women’s sports are religiously motivated does not mean that the only possible reason for opposing it is religion. Some people who oppose the death penalty do so for religious reasons, but it doesn’t follow that opposition to the death penalty is a purely religious taboo.
It is so difficult to make my further-left friends understand this. I’ve actually been accused of retaining some religious squick about this.
Who needs religion when the evidence is what it is?
Funny how we/you are accused of retaining religious vestiges, when we/you are arguing from simple evolutionary biology, while they are advocating for a dualism in which “souls” occasionally find their way into wrong bodies.
Trans issues were something I had no compulsion to examine until I saw my son watching a Seattle Public Schools video in Kindergarten which claimed the MDs “just guessed” if you were a boy or girl at birth and my daughter’s 3rd grade teacher led 2/3 of the class to proclaim a NB or trans identity, one of which was our neighbor’s daughter who was filling journals with suicidal entries and openly talking about it but the trans identity claim was kept secret from parents. My daughter was also body checked by a boy 2x her weight on the soccer field. In other words, everything that ‘wasn’t happening’ was happening.
So I thought about it and observed the few students who remained trans after being indoctrinated by that teacher. After deliberation I came to believe a claim of transness which includes the concept of a gendered soul in an opposite sexed person is itself the religious claim. I think this model is non-existent. But gender dysphoric people do exist. Almost all children will desist if allowed natural puberty and brain development. A minuscule fraction will require GAC of some sort. But the model and cultural environment I witness in Seattle, WA is one where children are encouraged to continue and even accelerate destructive rumination based on falsehoods.
You beat me to it. I was going to make the point that the FFRF are a bunch of hypocrites because their assertion that “female souls” can be born in male bodies is just as much religious nonsense as Jesus rising from the dead or Mohammad riding a winged horse to heaven.
Teaching kids that whether they are boys or girls is simply the result of a doctor’s “guess” is outrageous. The woke’s dissociation from reality is complete.
It’s a good ruling on moral grounds. It allows states to prioritize fairness in sports, where biological men usually have a biological advantage. And it allows them to prioritize safety in bathrooms, locker rooms, prisons, and also in sports (where a trans-female boxer might kill a biological female with a single, powerful blow). I’m not qualified to comment on the legal findings in specific cases, nor on the constitutionality of the matter as a whole, but I would hope that the law and constitution occupy the same moral high ground or that the two can be brought into agreement.
note that this does not, as many claim, ban transwomen from competing in sports. But trans rights are male rights.
I for one have trouble following these discussions because of the use of confusing terms.
“trans-woman” – is this a woman who “transitioned” to be a man or a man who “transitioned” to be woman?
“trans-man” – is this a man who “transitioned” to be a woman or a woman who transitioned” to be a man?
In this special lexicon, if “trans” actually means “transformed”, this is not possible.
Instead of “trans-woman” and “trans-man” it would be better to simply say “presents-as-woman” or “presents-as-man”.
And we should stop using the absurd expression: “sex assigned at birth” – it is “sex observed at birth”.
No woman needs the unnecessary adjective trans, only men who like to think of themselves as women. The only requirement of a transwomen is to be born male.
The same holds true for females who become trans men.
Hope this helps.
What I mean by “trans-identified man” is a natal man who identifies as trans, i.e. presents as a woman. Others call them “trans women”.
I like your term because it doesn’t concede that such a person is ANY sort of woman!
I too entirely agree with this decision given the empirical evidence of a continued male advantage. But I’m less sanguine that it doesn’t matter what people’s motivation was, such as empirical vs biblical. Might some judges, for example, have voted here on biblical grounds that could also be used to justify other less sensible (i.e., not consistent with evidence or reason) issues? Similar for the public. People arguing for the restriction on empirical grounds and fairness provide a way for anti-trans people to advance their agenda, which perhaps includes limits that would be discriminatory but more achievable given this decision. At the very least, it allows them to state publicly their agreement with the decision without having to be open about their religious or other ideological reason. Certainly, this ruling is great, as is the Olympics decision to use biological sex.
The standard nomenclature uses trans-woman to be a male-to-female transgender person, and trans-man to be a female-to-male transgender person. Using something else implies a trans-unaccepting political position. If that is what you intend, then don’t be surprised when this gives offense.
Sorry, but my whole stand gives offense. Back when I was called “anti-trans” by my DEI Committee, I was using the term “trans woman” instead of “trans-identified male”. Do you seriously think that if I reverted to my old terminology, people would be more likely to accept my stand on trans women/trans-identified men participating in women’s sport?
You realize that changing language to satisfy this kind of activist accomplishes nothing, as they won’t be satisfed until trans people are regarded as identical in every respect to the natal sex they’re adopting.
Precisely. Using his ‘preferred’ nomenclature implies they have actually have changed their sex which is physically impossible and more importantly keeps the waters very muddy and confusing. Trans activists have a very clear dislike of simple easy comprehensible language since they cannot refute logically when concepts are debated. They seem to think that if you control the language you control the narrative and the outcomes.
And as they often say, the defining characteristic of a so-called trans woman is, in fact, being a male.
I understand what Jamie means. None of us wants to cause hurt.
I think the problem is that this proposed language policing does not prevent harm, and instead only caters to those who are looking to be offended (rather than harmed). This is problematic.
“If people are determined to be offended…there’s nothing you can do about that.” Christopher Hitchens (2:30–2:45)
“If someone tells me I’ve hurt their feelings I say ‘I’m still waiting to hear what your point is.'” CH (2:45–2:50)
“It’s now very common to hear people say, ‘I’m offended’, as if that gives them certain rights…It’s simply a whine.” Stephen Fry (3:10–3:15)
“[gestures helplessly] I’m offended by some things. I’m offended by chewing gum. I’m offended by backwards-pointing baseball hats…So what if I’m offended? So what if my feelings are hurt? Does that give me the right to prevent others from expressing their opinions?” Richard Dawkins (6:10–6:35)
I’ve been badgered and cajoled going on 10 years to deny knowledge of basic biology (human sex is binary, humans can’t change sex, humans are not born with a gendered soul, nobody is born in the wrong body) and call a man in a dress a woman. This bullying is wrong, and it’s in part a mens’ rights movement. [As the feminist Jen Izaakson said, “The fact that society believes a man who says he is a woman, instead of a woman who says he is not, is proof that society knows exactly who is the man and who is the woman.”] So I’m just not going along with it anymore.
And in any event how could our host’s language cause harm? A trans woman (or transwoman or trans-identified male or TIM or a rose by any other name) is still male no matter how one refers to him. None of those terms are slurs, all are just ways to talk about males with unusual and mistaken self-perceptions (cf. sex-change, gendered souls, etc.). I don’t think anyone here bears ill will toward such folx just for their mistaken views of themselves.
Sorry for the long comment.
Interesting comments here. I have recently stopped calling someone her or him if they are not, as doing this makes me a liar. I find some inoffensive but technically correct term.
Quite aside from either religion or fairness, there is that little matter of factuality. The “trans” movement reflects the way university curricula in what is called “Gender Studies” omit Biology. If such postmodernist superstitions go further, we may soon expect Social Justice Math (eliminating the concept of inequalities) and programs of Social Justice Engineering that omit Physics. Enough.
It is time to return “trans girls” to the same category as mermaids and leprechauns.
John Searle claims there are two types of facts: brute facts (like water & chromosomes) and social facts (like marriage and money). In most cases they coincide, but not always. An example is parenthood. Most often the child’s DNA matches that of their parents, but not always. For example, an adult that adopts a child is still considered a parent.
Sex is a brute fact, gender identity is a social fact. They can exist in apparent contradiction. Both sides in the “transgender debate” seem set on forcing one type of facticity to surrender to the other.
As for transgender people in sports, it should be up to the governing body of each sport to create fair rules. This may involve a separate categories for trans-people.
Gender identity as “social fact” cannot be used to justify laws and social policies that prioritize it over sex, because the brute facts of sex and sexual dimorphism remain relevant. Against those brute facts, “gender identity” offers only a subjective and non-falsifiable state of mind.
Also, many trans activists and allies maintain that “gender identity” is a brute fact. They will point to neuroimaging studies, in the mistaken idea that these provide empirical support for their position.
I think it’s important to deny that there is any such thing as “gender” in the sense that it’s being used. It isn’t measurable, and is no more real than “soul”.
Here in Oz we were recently treated to the spectacle, in a Senate hearing, of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner – a doctor no less – responding to a question regarding female-identified biological males in women’s sports “I don’t know what the term “biological male” means”. Australia remains one of the last bastions of trans madness codified in law, along with Canada.
Of course, using the term “fact” in both the phrases “brute fact” and “social fact” is not entirely unproblematic, precisely because the “brute facts” are indeed objective “facts”, while “social facts” are in fact (sorry) only “social constructs”.
The “social fact of gender identity” is unfortunately undefinable if we refuse to rely on rigid stereotypes. Someone is socially considered a woman instead of a man if they — what? Wear dresses and have long hair? Have a sweet and humble nature? Work in a caring profession?Shake their hips and giggle?
Attempts to avoid this nonsense while still holding on to gender-as-social-category usually amount to variations of “uses spaces reserved for women,” which doesn’t address the issue. If anyone can do better, I’d be interested to see the attempt.
I am a life member of the FFRF, and have communicated directly with Annie Laurie Gaylor in the past. I have met her and Dan Barker at an FFRF convention, and found them both to be compassionate, intelligent people. However, this insistence on leaving their stated objective to be a state/church-separation watchdog to embrace this unscientific gender ideology has driven the FFRF completely off the rails. The belief that a person can be medically altered to be the opposite sex from their observed sex at birth completely disregards evidence, science, reason, logic, and just plain old common sense; especially in light of the many trans-gender-regret people now coming forward. I am very disappointed in the FFRF.
YouTube: “The Wounds That Won’t Heal” Detransitioner Chloe Cole.
YouTube: “I was told my trans surgery regret was OCD” Detransitioner Ritchie Herron.
Google: Detransitioner Fox Varian wins $2 Million lawsuit
I totally agree, James, and I’m in agreement with PCC(E) here.
Katherine Stock says the way to sort it out is to think of the word “trans” as “fake”. So a “trans” women is a fake women, i.e— a man.
Love that one.
The FFRF, whom I’ve also supported over the years until lately, seems to think that opposition to troonery – if you will – is religiously based.
Yet I’ve been involved with genspect for years and they couldn’t be further from any religious/Christian motivation or ideology. Rather, they’re grounded in biological reality. Jesus has no place in the debate from our side.
best regards,
D.A.
NYC
Thanks, David. I like replacing “trans” with “fake.” That makes it much less confusing, at least for me. Also, thanks for mentioning Genspect; I had not heard of them. Their website is very informative and science based.
New Zealand is having a moment with a private members bill – Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill – tabled by NZ First MP Jenny Marcroft. It’s just a few lines but gets biological reality on the legislative table for the first time in New Zealand.
Consultations have just ended, with the usual word salad whines from those who claim gender dysphorics and diversity and the tooth fairy will be harmed, although with a singular lack of evidence provided. I’ve commented in support, but suggested strengthening the definitions around sex to reproductive role, at the last minute, and I think comments are now closed for the bill to progress to Committee stage.
Where it will go from her is anyone’s guess.
In comment 12: “… suggested strengthening the definitions around sex to reproductive role…” In discussions of this subject, there is remarkably little mention of the connection between sex and reproduction. No surprise that those who imagine one can be “born in the wrong body” remain willfully ignorant of what birth means, and of the fetal development in the womb that precedes birth in viviparous animals. The trans lobby succeeded in virtually banning these matters from discussion of sex and sex roles—just as it succeeded in sneaking the absurd “assigned at birth” usage into common use. A sociological study of these tricky deformations of language would be valuable.
RE: “A sociological study of these tricky deformations of language would be valuable.”
Rogers Brubaker (born 1956) is professor of sociology at University of California, Los Angeles and UCLA Foundation Chair.
Rogers Brubaker: Gender Identity: The Career of a Category. Polity Press, July 7, 2026 (125 pages of text)
Rogers Brubaker: Gender Identity: The Career of a Category. Theory and Social Inquiry, 1(1), 2025, pages 1-50 [open access]
Abstract:
This paper analyzes the remarkable career of the category “gender identity” in recent decades. Tracing the institutional embedding of the category in medicine, law and administration, data-gathering, and education, I show that gender identity became established as a basic principle of vision and division of the social world, competing with, displacing, or redefining sex. I then seek to explain why this development provoked so little opposition and attracted so little attention until the middle of the last decade and why it has subsequently become the focus of intensifying controversy. Once gender identity became an expansively actionable category, one that could be invoked, even by children and adolescents, to demand recognition and identity-affirming medical treatment and to gain access to sex-segregated activities, spaces, and facilities, the category ceased to be understood as a private, self-regarding matter and came to be widely understood as affecting others’ interests: some women’s sex-based interest in privacy, competitive athletes’ interest in fairness, and parents’ interest in protecting their children from potentially irreversible harm. This shift in public perception, I suggest, made the issue ripe for political exploitation and moral panic, though I also note the limits of the “moral panic” perspective.
Thanks, Peter, this is very interesting. Can’t tell from the summary how much Brubaker analyzes the categories (class, occupations, age distributions, geographic locations, etc.) of those who facilitate the substitution of gender identity for sex in discourse, law, medicine, education and so on. I would guess that sociology of this sort would overlap with Musa al-Gharbi’s work on the behaviors of “symbolic capitalists”.
As it turns out… JKR wrote a rather good essay (in my opinion) on ‘trans’ some time ago. See https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/. Her views match PCC(E) rather closely. I am very much inclined to agree with both (I wish I had a fraction of the writing talent of either).
Eventually, the SC may end the debate by stating the allowing boys on girl’s teams is a violation of Title IX. However, no such ruling has come so far. A test case would be required. This may or may not happen.
Some comments on potential future legal developments in the US by the investigative journalist Gerald Posner – June 30, 2026:
https://x.com/geraldposner/status/2072013128762585424
Some folks want to bend the science — but it ain’t gonna work.
DNA is DNA. A male is a male; a female is a female. What one believes, or does to change that, cannot change their DNA.
You want to “scrutinize” this issue?
Scrutinize this: Put your daughter in a ring with that Algerian trans-boxer and let her take a couple punches. Case closed.
Be aware that pro-trans athlete supporters in sports keep calling these young athletes “females”… most of them are YOUNG GIRLS.
This is confusing. You mean “female boxers,” not “young daughters,” because of course a young woman is going to be pummeled by a trained boxer of whatever sex. And who, exactly are thye “young girls”? The pro-trans atlete supporters (false) or the athletes themselves (also false)?