Playback speed:
The Virginia Christian Alliance continues our Constitutional Showdown series framed from the Christian Worldview and Constitutional originalism, exposing how modern courts twist the framers’ original intent while equipping believers to defend constitutional truth through faithful citizenship and prayer.
On January 13, 2026, the Supreme Court will hear arguments that could reshape American athletics forever. Two cases—Little v. Hecox from Idaho and West Virginia v. B.P.J. from West Virginia—ask a question with profound implications: Can states protect women’s sports by limiting participation based on biological sex, or does the Constitution require that transgender women be allowed to compete against biological females?
The stakes are immense.
Twenty-seven states have already enacted laws protecting women’s sports. Thousands of female athletes, from middle school through college, await the Court’s answer. And Christians—who care deeply about both truth and compassion—must navigate competing goods without abandoning either.
This is not a case about hatred versus love. It’s about how we love—and whether love requires us to deny what God has made plain.
The Cases Before the Court
Lindsay Hecox is a 24-year-old college student at Boise State University who wants to run track. Born male, Hecox identifies as female and has undergone hormone therapy. Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, passed in 2020, prohibits biological males from competing on women’s teams at any level—elementary school through university. The law applies categorically: no exceptions, no case-by-case evaluations, no testosterone thresholds. Hecox sued, arguing the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
A federal district court initially blocked Idaho’s law. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, applying heightened scrutiny and concluding the state failed to justify categorically excluding all transgender women. But in a move signaling the Supreme Court’s shifting approach, the Ninth Circuit later withdrew its opinion after the Court’s decision in United States v. Skrmetti—the Tennessee case upholding bans on gender-affirming care for minors.
Becky Pepper-Jackson was 11 years old when West Virginia passed its “Save Women’s Sports Act” in 2021. Now 15, she has been competing in middle school cross country and track under a preliminary injunction. Pepper-Jackson has taken puberty blockers since before puberty and has never experienced the physiological changes typical of male puberty. Unlike Hecox’s case, West Virginia’s involves a minor who arguably never gained the physical advantages male puberty confers.
The Fourth Circuit ruled in Pepper-Jackson’s favor last year, holding that West Virginia’s categorical ban violated Title IX—the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in education—and the Equal Protection Clause. The court emphasized that Pepper-Jackson, having never undergone male puberty, did not fit West Virginia’s own rationale for the law: preventing unfair physical advantages.
West Virginia appealed. The Supreme Court granted review. And now the nation waits.
What’s Really at Stake: Competing Goods
Before we rush to conclusions, we must acknowledge what makes this case difficult: both sides are defending something good.
Advocates for transgender inclusion rightly note that Pepper-Jackson wants what every child wants—to play sports with friends, to be part of a team, to belong. They point out that sports provide documented benefits: physical health, mental well-being, social connection, discipline, and perseverance. Excluding trans youth entirely, they argue, inflicts real harm for unclear benefits. They ask: Where is the epidemic of transgender dominance in women’s sports? Where are the championships stolen, the scholarships lost?
Advocates for biological women’s sports rightly note that male and female bodies are fundamentally different—not as social constructs, but as biological realities that confer enormous athletic advantages. They point to science showing that testosterone during puberty creates permanent changes: denser bones, greater muscle mass, larger hearts and lungs, different skeletal structure. Even after hormone therapy, most of these advantages persist. They point to Lia Thomas, the University of Pennsylvania swimmer who, after competing for three years on the men’s team, transitioned and immediately dominated women’s competition—smashing records, finishing 38 seconds ahead of female competitors, changing in the women’s locker room while teammates stood in a hallway to avoid confrontation.
Female athletes, many of whom have trained their entire lives for a shot at collegiate competition, are being told that fairness requires them to compete against biological males who retain 10-50% performance advantages even after hormone suppression. Women fought for fifty years to secure Title IX—to create a protected category where they could compete fairly. Now they’re being told that protecting that category is discrimination.
Both goods are real. Both deserve respect. But when goods conflict, we must choose—and our choice must be rooted in reality.
The Biblical Framework: Male and Female He Created Them
Christians cannot approach this question without first asking: What does God say about male and female?
The answer is foundational: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). The distinction between male and female is not incidental to human identity. It is constitutive of how God made us. It runs through every cell of our bodies—46 chromosomes with either XX or XY, determining not just reproductive organs but bone density, muscle fiber composition, lung capacity, heart size, metabolic rates, and countless other physiological differences.
These differences are not punishment. They are design. They are not oppression. They are gift. And they matter profoundly in athletics—which is precisely why we have separate men’s and women’s categories in the first place.
To pretend these differences don’t exist—or that they can be erased by identifying differently or suppressing hormones for a year—is to deny God’s design. It is to call God’s creation a mistake that we must correct through ideology.
But—and this is crucial—affirming biological reality does not require us to be cruel.
Jesus showed us a different way. When the woman caught in adultery stood before Him, He did not deny the reality of sin. He did not say, “Your accusers are wrong; you’ve done nothing deserving judgment.” He said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more” (John 8:11). Truth and mercy. Reality and compassion. Both. Always.
We can—we must—say that biological males competing in women’s sports is unfair without saying that people experiencing gender dysphoria are wicked or unworthy of dignity. We can protect female athletes without demonizing trans youth. We can insist on categories based on biology without treating those who struggle with their identity as less than fully human.
The question is not whether we will choose truth or compassion. The question is how we will hold both together.
The Science Is Clear: Male Advantages Persist
The most comprehensive research on this question comes from peer-reviewed studies in Sports Medicine, the British Journal of Sports Medicine, and other leading journals. The findings are consistent:
Male puberty creates permanent advantages. When boys hit puberty, testosterone levels increase twentyfold. This hormone drives dramatic physical changes: increased muscle mass (particularly upper body), denser and longer bones, larger heart and lungs, greater hemoglobin concentration (more oxygen to muscles), and increased height. These changes translate into athletic performance advantages of 10-50% depending on the sport—with the greatest gaps in activities requiring upper body strength, explosive power, and endurance.
Hormone suppression reduces but does not eliminate these advantages. Studies of transgender women on hormone therapy show reductions in muscle mass of only 3-5% after one year and approximately 12% after three years. Bone density, skeletal size, heart size, and lung capacity remain essentially unchanged. Height, limb length, and hip structure—critical for sports like basketball, volleyball, swimming, and track—are unaffected. Even after full testosterone suppression, transgender women retain significant strength advantages over biological women, particularly in the upper body.
These advantages matter in competition. Before Lia Thomas transitioned, she ranked 462nd in the 200-yard freestyle among male NCAA swimmers. After transitioning and competing as a woman, she won the NCAA women’s championship, beating the second-place finisher by 1.75 seconds (an eternity in elite swimming). When CeCé Telfer, a biological male, competed on the men’s track team at Franklin Pierce University, Telfer ranked 200th-300th nationally. After transitioning, Telfer won the NCAA Division II women’s 400-meter hurdles championship.
The pattern is unmistakable: mediocre male athletes become champion female athletes after transition. This is not because transgender women are cheating. It’s because male puberty creates advantages that persist despite hormone therapy.
Fairness Requires Fair Categories
Here’s what many miss: fairness in sports requires fair categories.
We don’t let adults compete against children. We don’t let heavyweight boxers fight flyweights. We don’t let professional athletes compete in amateur events. Why? Because fairness demands that competitors be roughly matched in the relevant physical attributes.
Sex is the most fundamental of these attributes. When we created Title IX in 1972, we recognized that biological males have such significant physical advantages over biological females that women could never compete fairly without a protected category. We didn’t create women’s sports out of sexism. We created them out of fairness—to give girls and women opportunities to excel in athletics despite their biological differences from males.
Allowing biological males to compete in the female category doesn’t expand fairness. It destroys fairness. It takes the very protection Title IX created and eliminates it—telling female athletes that their category no longer belongs to them.
Consider the absurdity of the alternative. If biological males who identify as female must be allowed in women’s sports, then the category “women’s sports” ceases to have any meaningful definition. It becomes simply “a sports category for anyone who identifies as female”—which means it’s no longer protected for biological females at all. Every female athlete becomes vulnerable to displacement by males who retain 10-50% performance advantages.
This is not theoretical. In Connecticut, after the state allowed biological males to compete in girls’ high school track, two transgender athletes won 15 women’s state championships. They set 17 new girls’ records. They took spots at regional and state meets from biological females who trained just as hard but couldn’t overcome the male physical advantages. Girls who would have medaled—who would have qualified for college scholarships—lost opportunities they will never get back.
When we tell these girls that “fairness” requires them to compete against biological males, we’re using the word to mean its opposite.
The Third Way: Fairness AND Dignity
So what’s the answer? How do we honor both the reality of biological sex and the dignity of those experiencing gender dysphoria?
The Third Way rejects both extremes:
We reject the progressive claim that biological differences don’t matter, that male and female are social constructs, that anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman in every sense, and that protecting women’s sports is just bigotry.
We reject the hard-right claim that all transgender people are predators, that gender dysphoria is just mental illness that should be mocked, and that anyone struggling with their identity deserves contempt.
The Third Way affirms three principles:
1. Women’s Sports Are a Protected Category Based on Biological Sex
Title IX was created to protect opportunities for biological females. The category exists because of biological realities, not gender identity. States have a legitimate—indeed, compelling—interest in maintaining fair competition for female athletes. This means biological males, regardless of hormone therapy or how they identify, should not compete in women’s sports.
This is not discrimination. It’s the very purpose of the category.
2. Separate Accommodations Preserve Both Fairness and Dignity
We can create opportunities for transgender athletes without eliminating fairness for biological women. Many proposals already exist:
- Open divisions (where any athlete can compete regardless of sex)
- Co-ed leagues
- Separate transgender categories (where interest and numbers permit)
- Club sports with flexible eligibility
Will these be perfect solutions? No. Will they provide the exact same experience as competing in sex-segregated sports? No. But life is full of trade-offs, and when goods conflict, we make the best accommodations we can. We don’t solve the problem by pretending reality doesn’t exist.
3. Truth About Biology AND Compassion for Strugglers
We can insist that Becky Pepper-Jackson is biologically male without treating her with cruelty. We can say that Lindsay Hecox should not compete on women’s teams without mocking their struggle. We can defend female athletes’ right to fair competition without calling transgender people an abomination.
The gospel demands this. Jesus calls us to speak truth and to love our neighbors—including those we disagree with, including those whose choices we believe are wrong. “Speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15) means neither truth without love nor love without truth. It means both.
What the Court Should Rule
When the Supreme Court hears these cases in January, it should affirm a simple principle: States may protect women’s sports by defining eligibility based on biological sex.
The Constitution does not require states to pretend that male and female bodies are interchangeable. The Equal Protection Clause does not demand that we erase the very categories Title IX created. And fairness—real fairness—requires acknowledging that male puberty creates advantages that cannot be eliminated by identifying differently or suppressing hormones for a year.
The Court’s recent decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming medical treatments for minors, signals where the Court is headed. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that laws addressing concerns about “preventing minors from making irreversible medical decisions” and “avoiding safety risks” survive constitutional scrutiny when they classify based on age and medical purpose rather than sex itself.
The transgender sports cases involve similar reasoning: States are not discriminating based on sex. They’re protecting a category defined by sex—women’s sports—from being rendered meaningless. They’re ensuring that the very protections Title IX created remain meaningful.
That’s not discrimination. That’s fairness.
What Christians Must Do
As followers of Christ, we cannot simply wait for the Court to decide and move on. We have responsibilities here:
First, speak truth. Don’t be silent when people claim that biological sex is a social construct, that male and female are mere gender identities, or that fairness requires biological males to compete against females. These claims are false. God made us male and female, and those categories matter. Our silence in the face of obvious falsehood is not kindness—it’s cowardice.
Second, speak with compassion. Remember that behind every ideological claim is a human being—often someone deeply hurting. People experiencing gender dysphoria are not our enemies. They are image-bearers of God who need truth and love. Mocking them, calling them names, treating them with contempt—this is sin. Jesus commands us to love even those we believe are wrong.
Third, support female athletes. Many women who speak up for fairness in their own sports face vicious attacks—being called bigots, losing sponsorships, facing social ostracism. Organizations like the Independent Council on Women’s Sports, former Olympians like Sharron Davies, and everyday athletes like Riley Gaines (who was forced to compete against Lia Thomas) need our vocal support. When women defend their own category, we should stand with them.
Fourth, pray for wisdom. These are genuinely difficult questions. We are dealing with real human suffering on multiple sides.
Pray
- God would give our leaders wisdom.
- The Supreme Court would rule justly.
- Pray for those experiencing gender dysphoria, that they would find peace in their God-given identity. Pray for female athletes facing unfair competition and
- Pray for our nation, that we would have the courage to speak truth even when it’s costly.
Conclusion: When Fairness Requires Reality
This case will be decided not on the question of who deserves dignity—everyone deserves dignity—but on the question of whether fairness requires acknowledging reality.
Can we protect opportunities for biological females without pretending that male and female bodies are interchangeable? Can we show compassion for those experiencing gender dysphoria without requiring everyone else to participate in that subjective experience as if it were objective truth?
The answer must be yes.
Because:
- Fairness demands that categories mean something.
- Justice requires that we not sacrifice female athletes on the altar of ideology.
- Compassion does not require us to lie.
God made us male and female. That’s not oppression. It’s design. It’s gift. And it matters—in life, in sports, and in how we order our society.
The Third Way is not complicated: Biological males should not compete in women’s sports. And people experiencing gender dysphoria still deserve to be treated with dignity.
Both are true. Both matter. And when the Supreme Court rules next summer, we pray they will have the courage to say so.
Scripture References:
- Genesis 1:27 – Male and female He created them
- Proverbs 21:15 – Justice is a joy to the righteous
- Matthew 9:36 – Jesus saw the crowds and had compassion
- John 8:11 – Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more
- Ephesians 4:15 – Speaking the truth in love
- 1 Peter 3:15 – Always be prepared to give a reason for the hope you have, with gentleness and respect
For Further Reading:
- Watson v. RNC: The Third Way on Ballot Deadlines
- Mahmoud v. Taylor: Parental Rights vs School Authority
- Chiles v. Salazar: Government in the Counseling Room
About This Series: Constitutional Showdown examines major Supreme Court cases from a Christian worldview and originalist constitutional perspective. We reject partisan extremes and pursue the Third Way—honoring both biblical truth and constitutional fidelity.
