Last week, a federal court ruled in favor of a 13-year-old transgender girl against West Virginia’s “Save Women’s Sports Act,” determining that Title IX protected her right to compete in girl’s sports. However, one of the judges involved in the case did not agree with the ruling.
The three-judge panel ruled that prohibiting the transgender girl from competing in girl’s sports would violate Title IX, which protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities. However, according to Sportico, Judge G. Steven Agee did not agree with the majority opinion, offering a dissenting opinion
“In a dissenting opinion, Judge G. Steven Agee maintained evidence shows [the girl] ‘may have a distinct biological advantage over biological girls’ and is thus not similarly situated to biological girls. Agee wrote that ‘ensuring equal opportunities for biological girls requires that they not have to compete against biological boys.’ He noted that [the girl] ‘repeatedly took opportunities away from biological girls’ by consistently placing in the top 15 competitors at events,” Sportico reported.
“Agee also argued the majority misunderstands Title IX, which he wrote ‘most of the country has understood … to prohibit biological-sex discrimination rather than gender-identity discrimination.'”
As Sportico notes, this ruling could provide a chance for the United States Supreme Court to rule on the issue.
