Banning Trans Girls From School Sports Is Neither Feminist Nor Legal | ACLU (original) (raw)

Track Starting Blocks

,
Skadden Fellow,
ACLU LGBT & HIV Project

Galen Sherwin,
Former Senior Staff Attorney,
ACLU Women’s Rights Project

March 12, 2019

Andraya Yearwood, a junior at Cromwell High School in Connecticut, recently finished second in the 55-meter dash at the state open indoor track championships. But instead of well-deserved accolades from her community, she now finds her achievements being publicly challenged — simply because she is transgender.

There is a long legacy of sex discrimination in athletics. Myths, such as the idea that physical exertion would harm women’s reproductive systems or that women were inherently inferior athletes, were historically used to “protect” women out of participation in entire fields, including marathon racing and contact sports, despite ample evidence that girls can compete and win against boys. The enactment of Title IX, the federal statute banning sex discrimination in school programs and activities receiving federal funds, was intended to end such discrimination, and it has indeed resulted in a dramatic increase in girls’ participation in sports. But girls — and particularly girls of color — still face stark inequalities in opportunities, funding, and resources.

The marginalization of trans student athletes is rooted in the same harmful history of gender discrimination and stereotyping that has impeded the achievement of gender equality in sports as a whole. Old stereotypes regarding athleticism, biology, and gender are being directed at transgender girls, who are frequently told outright that they are not girls (and conversely transgender boys are told they are not really boys). This policing of gender has been used to justify subjecting transgender student athletes to numerous additional barriers to participating in sports, from onerous medical requirements to segregation in locker rooms to outright bans on their participation.

The truth is, transgender women and girls have been competing in sports at all levels for years, and there is no research supporting the claim that they maintain a competitive advantage. As Yearwood rightfully pointed out, all athletes, cis and trans, compete with different advantages, but only some are questioned:

“One high jumper could be taller and have longer legs than another, but the other could have perfect form, and then do better. One sprinter could have parents who spend so much money on personal training for their child, which in turn, would cause that child to run faster.”

When girls are pushed out of sports, they miss out on the community building, leadership skills, and all of the other benefits that being part of a team can offer. This is particularly harmful for transgender students, who face detrimental effects on their physical and emotional wellbeing when they are pushed out of affirming spaces and communities.

These stereotypes are also being invoked in the arena of professional sports, where so-called “gender testing” has been used to police the bodies of women of color and intersex women. The International Association of Athletic Federations has targeted athletes like Dutee Chand and Caster Semenya for testosterone testing based on arbitrary limits. IAAF’s new set of proposed regulations, which Semenya is challenging, would require female athletes with hyperandrogenism to undergo unnecessary medical treatment to suppress their hormones in order to compete.

Cisgender women should be concerned whenever an alleged concern for “protecting” our wellbeing is invoked to justify exclusion. We’ve seen these arguments play out with the harmful and debunked “bathroom predator” myth, where false concerns for cis girls and sexual harassment have been used to promote legislation banning transgender people from public restrooms. Most recently, we’ve seen it harnessed by legislators like those in South Dakota who have capitalized on recent transphobic comments to push for bills like SB 1225, which would have banned all trans youth from playing sports in school consistent with their gender identity.

One thing is clear: The politicians who introduce these anti-trans bills are not concerned with the integrity of girls’ athletics, any more than proponents of bathroom bans are concerned about preventing gender-based violence. We must see these efforts for what they are: fear mongering intended to push transgender and nonbinary people out of public spaces.

When misinformation about biology and gender is used to bar transgender girls from sports in schools receiving federal funds, it amounts to the same form of sex discrimination that has long been prohibited under Title IX. Schools should look for ways to support all girls who want to participate in athletics, rather than attempt to police gender on the basis of impermissible sex stereotypes.

Related Content

Advocates Move to Appoint Receiver to Oversee Healthcare in Arizona Prisons

PHOENIX – The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Arizona, Prison Law Office, and Disability Rights Arizona asked a federal judge today to appoint a receiver to take over the management of healthcare in Arizona prisons. The request was made in a long-running class action lawsuit originally filed in 2012 on behalf of the nearly 30,000 people incarcerated by the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADCRR). The receiver, an independent authority appointed by the court, would assume control of ADCRR’s medical and mental health care systems and ensure that they meet constitutional standards. The request for receivership follows years of well-documented systemic healthcare failures in Arizona’s prisons, despite multiple court orders and over a decade of litigation. In April 2023, U.S. District Judge Roslyn O. Silver issued a sweeping order acknowledging the failure to provide constitutionally adequate medical care and requiring ADCRR to make substantial changes. Since then, independent experts appointed by Judge Silver have issued multiple reports detailing ADCRR’s failure to comply with the court’s orders or to take necessary actions to remedy the systemic failures, resulting in preventable deaths, permanent injuries, and needless suffering. Corene Kendrick, deputy director at the ACLU’s National Prison Project, had the following statement: “Nearly two years after Judge Silver ordered Arizona officials to make comprehensive improvements to prison medical and mental health care, and over a decade after we filed this case, the state and its for-profit health care vendors have failed to address the avoidable suffering and deaths in their prisons. Appointing a receiver is a rare step reserved for the most extreme situations, but here we are. The stakes are life and death for the people in Arizona prisons not receiving the care they desperately need.” Below are additional statements from: Rita Lomio, senior staff attorney at the Prison Law Office: “Judge Silver has described the financial cost of this litigation as ‘astronomical.’ The cost in terms of human suffering and preventable death is incalculable. Federal judges have used almost every tool at their disposal to address the crisis in the Arizona state prisons over the last decade, including millions of dollars in contempt fines, enforcement orders, and appointment of experts. Nothing has worked. The only remaining option with any realistic chance of success is receivership. A receiver can build systems, efficiencies, and competence, with the goal of transferring authority back to the State as soon as possible and finally ending this case.” Maya Abela, deputy legal director at Disability Rights Arizona: “For too long people in ADCRR have been placed at risk of serious harm and death because of the lack of appropriate mental health and medical care. People with disabilities are dying. These conditions must come to an end. The injunction must be implemented so that class members can obtain the relief the court has ordered, and at this stage it is abundantly clear that the action needed to advance this goal is appointment of a receiver.”
Advocates Move to Appoint Receiver to Oversee Healthcare in Arizona Prisons

Orr v. Trump

On his first day back in office in January 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that led the State Department to suspend its policy allowing transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people to update the sex designations on their passports, leading some with pending applications to have their passports withheld from them and others to receive a new passport with the wrong sex designation listed. Soon after, the ACLU sued on behalf of seven transgender and nonbinary people on the grounds the policy violates their constitutional rights and the Administrative Procedures Act.
Orr v. Trump

Transgender and Nonbinary People Take Trump to Court Over Passport Restrictions

WASHINGTON – Following an executive order from President Donald Trump barring people from updating the sex designation on their passports, seven people have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the State Department’s refusal to issue passports with accurate sex designations. On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order attempting to mandate discrimination against transgender people across the federal government and government programs. This included a directive to the Departments of State and Homeland Security “to require that government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards” reflect their sex “at conception.” Under the ensuing Passport Policy, within 24 hours the State Department began holding some passports and other documents (such as birth certificates and court orders) submitted by transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people who had applied to update the sex designation on their U.S. passports and returning others with their applications rejected and their newly-issued passport marked with their sex assigned at birth. “I’ve lived virtually my entire adult life as a man. Everyone in my personal and professional life knows me as a man, and any stranger on the street who encountered me would view me as a man,” said Reid Solomon-Lane of North Adams, Massachusetts. “I thought that 18 years after transitioning, I would be able to live my life in safety and ease. Now, as a married father of three, Trump’s executive order and the ensuing passport policy have threatened that life of safety and ease. If my passport were to reflect a sex designation that is inconsistent with who I am, I would be forcibly outed every time I used my passport for travel or identification, causing potential risk to my safety and my family’s safety.” The ACLU has been contacted through its legal intake form by over 1,500 transgender people or family members, many with passport applications suspended or pending, who are concerned about being able to get passports that accurately reflect their identity. For years, including throughout the first Trump Administration, the State Department has allowed people to change the sex designation on their passport to be in alignment with their gender identity. In 2022, the State Department issued a revised policy making it easier to update the sex designation, and allowing individuals to select M, F, or X for their sex. Similar policies are used in 21 states plus the District of Columbia with regards to birth certificates and driver’s licenses as well as countries around the world. Since the Executive Order was signed, the State Department has said publicly that applications to obtain a sex designation consistent with their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth have been “suspended.” An official with the White House has stated that the pending policy requiring passports to bear the holder’s sex assigned at birth will not be applied retroactively. The new lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Massachusetts, and law firm Covington & Burling LLP, on behalf of seven people who have not been able to obtain passports that match who they are because of the State Department’s new Passport Policy or are likely to be impacted by the new policy upon their next renewal. The complaint was filed in the federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts. “The plaintiffs in this case have had their lives disrupted by a chaotic policy clearly motivated by animus that serves zero public interest,” said Sruti Swaminathan, Staff Attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Our clients need to travel for work, school, and family, and forcing them to carry documents that directly contradict what they know about themselves to be true–or withhold those documents altogether–is a blatant effort to violate their privacy and deny them their freedom to be themselves. We’re thankful for their participation in this lawsuit and are hopeful the court will see through this flagrant attempt to violate our plaintiffs' rights under the Constitution.” “This is yet another example of the Trump administration attempting to deny the dignity of transgender people and trying to push them out of public life,” said Jessie Rossman, legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts. “These efforts are cruel, unfair, and unlawful. We’re challenging this unconstitutional Passport Policy because all people deserve the freedom to live their lives safely and with dignity.” “Transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people deserve dignity, privacy, and the right to travel, just as all people do,” said Isaac D. Chaput, a partner in Covington’s San Francisco office. “We admire the courage of our clients to stand up to this attempt to deprive them of these fundamental rights, and we’re proud to represent them alongside the ACLU and ACLU of Massachusetts.” Today’s lawsuit argues the Passport Policy implemented by the State Department violates the Administrative Procedures Act because it is unconstitutional and arbitrary and capricious, and because it failed to comply with requirements to provide notice and comment for changes to government forms. The lawsuit also asserts that the State Department’s actions violate transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people’s rights under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution by unlawfully restricting their freedom of movement, as well as their rights under the Equal Protection Clause by unjustifiably discriminating against them on the basis of their sex. The policy also violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by requiring people to have a sex designation on their passport that conflicts with their identity and potentially outs them to others. This violates the First Amendment’s protection against being required to convey governmental ideological messages they disagree with. Today's filing can be found here.
Transgender and Nonbinary People Take Trump to Court Over Passport Restrictions

ACLU and ACLU of Utah Celebrate Win for Drag Performers’ First Amendment Rights

ST. GEORGE, Utah — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah Foundation, Inc. (ACLU of Utah), ACLU, and the law firm Jenner and Block announced a historic settlement agreement on behalf of Mitski Avalōx and Southern Utah Drag Stars (Drag Stars). The case, Southern Utah Drag Stars v. the City of St. George, was filed in May of 2023 after the city of St. George denied Drag Stars a special event permit for a family-friendly drag show. The city’s refusal to grant Drag Stars a permit is part of a years-long effort to target drag performances and LGBTQ+ pride events in violation of the First and 14th Amendments, as well as the Utah Constitution. “The courage of Drag Stars and Mitski Avalōx to bring this case affirmed what has always been true: all Utahns are entitled to the fundamental protections of the First Amendment, said Thomas Ford, staff attorney at the ACLU of Utah. “This is a win not just for our clients, but for all people who care about limiting the government’s ability to impose subjective views of what they deem appropriate on all of us.” On March 3, 2023, Drag Stars applied for a city of St. George special events permit to host a family-friendly drag event, Allies & Community Drag Show Festival, at J.C. Snow Park. A few weeks later, the city denied the application, alleging that Drag Stars did not comply with the city of St George’s advertising ordinance, an obscure local rule which prohibits advertising for special events until the event permit is granted. Drag Stars appealed the denial, and during the appeal process, at least one city council member acknowledged that the advertising ban is not enforceable. Nonetheless, the city of St. George denied Drag Stars’ appeal. In May of 2023, the ACLU of Utah, ACLU, and Jenner & Block filed a lawsuit on behalf of Drag Stars and Mitski Avalōx challenging the city of St. George’s denial of the event permit and unlawful censorship of drag performances in violation of our client’s First Amendment rights. On June 16, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted Drag Stars’ request for a preliminary injunction and ordered the city of St. George to reverse its denial of Drag Stars’ special event application and issue a permit allowing Drag Stars to host their family-friendly drag performance. In doing so, the court recognized that the protections of the First Amendment extend to drag performances like the family-friendly event hosted by Drag Stars. “Amid nationwide attacks on LGBTQ+ people, this settlement is a reminder that the First Amendment protects everyone,” said Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Drag is undeniably a form of artistic and political expression and we couldn’t be more pleased that our clients’ rights have been vindicated.” Under the 2025 settlement agreement, the city of St. George admitted that their denial of Drag Stars’ special event application violated Drag Stars’ First Amendment rights and agreed to publicly apologize to Drag Stars for this violation. "This victory isn’t just mine—it’s a win for every queer person who’s been told to stay invisible. Drag is a powerful form of expression, affirming that the First Amendment protects us all, including drag performers. The city council of St. George tried to censor us but the Constitution was on our sides,” said Mitski Avalōx, founder of Southern Utah Drag Stars and the plaintiff in this case.
Court Case: Southern Utah Drag Stars, LLC v. City of St. George
Affiliate: Utah
ACLU and ACLU of Utah Celebrate Win for Drag Performers’ First Amendment Rights