Transgender sports bans are about fairness, not discrimination

PUBLISHED: January 21, 2026 | www.baltimoresun.com

The age-old question is whether transgender women, biological males who identify as women, should be allowed to compete in women’s sports, where they can shatter records, outperform female athletes and in some cases cause physical injury.

That question has now reached the Supreme Court.

The court this month heard oral arguments involving two state laws that limit participation in sex-segregated sports to biological males and biological females competing in their respective categories. While most observers think the court will uphold the laws, the Supreme Court’s decisions can’t easily be predicted. Although the court holds a 6–3 conservative majority, the outcome and the specifics of the precedent that will be set in these cases are far from certain.

Consider the landmark 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. In that case, Justice Neil Gorsuch, appointed by President Donald Trump, authored the majority opinion holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Gorsuch reasoned that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity necessarily involves discrimination based on sex, because such treatment depends on the individual’s biological sex.

How that reasoning translates into the realm of athletics is precisely the issue now before the court.

In practice, the results have been predictable: average or mediocre male athletes competing as women often dominate female competitions, break long-standing records, win championships and displace biological women from podiums, scholarships and roster spots. In contact sports, the disparity can also create a heightened risk of injury.

There are well-documented biological differences between males and females. Yet advocacy groups continue to press novel constitutional theories and expansive interpretations of federal law that would have been virtually unimaginable a decade ago.

In these cases, the states argue that their laws do not constitute sex-based discrimination but rather reflect a neutral and rational policy grounded in biological reality. Requiring males to compete in men’s sports and females to compete in women’s sports, they contend, is the only way to preserve fairness and competitive integrity.

The example of Lia Thomas illustrates this concern. As a male swimmer, Thomas ranked well outside elite competition. Competing as a woman, Thomas became one of the fastest female swimmers in the country. Beyond record-setting performances, the more lasting harm is structural: Each time a transgender athlete enters women’s competition, a biological female loses an opportunity, whether for advancement, recognition or participation itself.

The law already recognizes that sex-based distinctions are permissible in limited and sensitive contexts when justified by legitimate interests.

Fire departments, for instance, often apply different physical standards because average differences in strength and upper-body power directly affect safety and operational effectiveness. Similarly, correctional facilities frequently assign guards based on sex to protect inmate privacy and reduce the risk of sexual assault, policies repeatedly upheld by courts as lawful and narrowly tailored.

Sports present the same principle. Biological differences confer advantages in certain but not all athletic disciplines. Men generally outperform women in strength- and speed-based sports. Conversely, women often excel in ultra-endurance events such as 100-mile races and long-distance open-water swimming, as well as in gymnastics. In Olympic skeet shooting, competition was separated by sex only after a woman defeated men in a mixed event.

Difference does not imply superiority or inferiority. It simply acknowledges reality. Men and women are different, and those differences are precisely why sex-segregated sports exist. Both deserve equal respect, equal celebration and equal protection when they perform at the highest levels of their respective competitions.

Armstrong Williams (www.armstrongwilliams.com; @arightside) is a political analyst, syndicated columnist and owner of the broadcasting company, Howard Stirk Holdings. He is also part owner of The Baltimore Sun.

©️ 2026 Baltimore Sun