The trans athlete debate is about a lot more than sports

This message comes from Angie. Tackling a home project, Angie can connect you with pros who do such a good job you might ask them to be your kid's godfather. Don't do that. Just trust them to get the job done. Find a pro for your projects at Angie.com. That's A-N-G-I.com.

Hids up, a tiny change is hit your way. Don't worry, don't worry. Starting next week, you'll be hearing from us a day early on Tuesdays and Fridays every week. So if you're joining for Code Switch on Tuesdays, we'll be right here ready for you. Hey, everyone, you're listening to Code Switch from NPR. I'm Bea Parker. And I'm Gene Demby.

So, Jane, I don't know if you've noticed, but since 2020, there's been a surge of anti-trans legislation. Oh, I've definitely noticed. Come on, no. It's everywhere. So let's get into some numbers really quick. So in 2021, there were over 150-ish anti-trans bill. introduced at the state level. And in 2025, that number was over 1,000. And we're not even halfway through this year, and there's been almost 800 anti-trans bills introduced in different states.

Only a fraction of them are actually passing, but it's a fraction of a bigger and bigger slice. Right. And one of the Trump administration's first big moves was to ban trans people from enlisting in the military. And then there was the executive order that requires that trans people have their passport specify their sex at birth, not their gender. And then there's the ban from earlier this year on gender affirming care for people in federal prisons. So all those are federal rules, right?

And now lots of state anti-trans laws are making it to the U.S. Supreme Court and setting federal precedent. So in 2025, the court maintained a ban on hormone therapy for my age. in the state of Tennessee. And then recently, the court decided that a conversion therapy ban in Colorado violated a religious-based counselor's First Amendment rights. And that was last year, but there are more trans rights cases being argued this year in front of the Supreme Court. Well, this leads us to what's happening right now with trans athletes.

So this past January, SCOTUS heard the oral arguments for two big cases around trans athletes in schools. And we're expecting to get those rules. in June. Around Pride. Um, yeah. So Parker, whose voice is that? This is Amara Jay Jones. She's a journalist and creator of trans-slash media. She sat through the oral arguments in January and has been following these cases for years. Okay. The first case was Little V. Hickokx. Lindsay Hickox at Idaho State and Boise wanted to compete on the cross-country running team. The first anti-transports bill to be passed in the country was in Idaho. Lindsay was

in snarled in that and essentially sued the state in order to be able to participate in sports. Lindsay is challenging Idaho's fairness in women's sports act. That act said that public schools from elementary to college needed to designate girls and boys' teams along quote unquote biological differences. And specifically that, quote, athletic teams or sports designated for females, women, or girls shall not be open to students of the male sex, end quote. Amara spoke with Lindsay after the initial challenge to the law back in 2021. Here's a clip of Lindsay talking about why she wanted to join the college cross-country team. Running by yourself isn't as fun as running with a team, especially with friends. I was missing that aspect, especially.

since I didn't really have the full experience, so to speak, I was pretending to be someone I wasn't in high school. It was just kind of sad to me that I never did it as Lindsay. And the second case was West Virginia v. BPJ, which challenges West Virginia's Save Women's Sports Act. That state policy is functionally identical to the one in Idaho, almost word for word, but in this case, the defendant was 11 years old at the time, so she was referred to by her initials.

But BPJ, or now Becky Pepper Jackson, was restricted from joining her school's track team. She never went through male puberty and has been living socially as a girl since elementary school. Both cases at their heart are about the ability of trans people to have equal access to sports based upon their gender identity. In both cases put into question if non-discrimination policies like the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX can be applied based on quote unquote biological sex or sex assigned at birth rather than gender. And of course, if you need a refresher, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is the idea that states have to apply laws equally to everybody, something that came out of, you know, reconstruction. Now, Title IX is downstream of that. So it's the policy that, prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal funding. So these cases are another test as to whether the U.S. Constitution protects trans people.

And by doing that, a lot of the debate rests on if the state even recognizes trans people as a group worthy of protection. One argument is even that they are too small a minority to define. If you begin to say that you have to be a large enough group of people to receive standing under the 14th Amendment, then that means that the 14th Amendment suddenly becomes a piece of Swiss cheese. And it becomes a question of, are you guys sufficiently large in number or perceived societal impact to be discriminated against? and then to need to have equal protection laws. So on today's show, I talked to journalist Amara Jay Jones about the trans-athletes cases before the Supreme Court

and what's at stake for future trans legislation and civil rights legislation more broadly. All right, Parker. It's all you from here. This message comes from SAP Concur, introducing Complete, a new integrated travel and expense management solution by SAP Concur and MXGBT. President of Concur Travel, Charlie Sulton,

shares how AI-powered travel agents are saving customers valuable time. It's funny because, as a business traveler myself, I can't tell you how many meetings I'm in where you realize I'm actually going to get out of here earlier than I thought, accomplishing my goals, but you don't want to step out of the room to call someone. You don't want to be rude and sit there kind of surfing on your phone. And so to just be able to quickly chat with an automated agent to handle the request and say, hey, is there a fly?

flight that's earlier than mine that leaves after 2 o'clock, if so, book it, and just have that taken care of will be a fantastic experience. Making everyone more productive, handling the end-to-end trip management in combination with the integration to concur expense, to really be able to leverage the full power of agentic AI and the power of the AMXGBT data, the SAP data. I'm very excited about the combination of all of those to be able to solve problems. Visit concur.com to learn more. This message comes from Odoo. Running a business shouldn't feel like surviving a software group project.

Start managing your business with one unified system. Odu is the all-in-one business management software. Try for free today at Odu.com slash NPR Podcasts.

You watched the oral arguments, right? Yes. What was the vibe in the courtroom? Besides my hard seat. Ooh.

So what was the vibe like? I think the vibe was tense because this issue has been deeply politicized. When Amara Jay Jones watched oral arguments in January, she said that it was clear it was all about class. And to explanatory comethes, we're talking about classes under equal protection. So classifications like race or national origin or disability or age, are considered in different ways under this clause. So if trans people have standing to claim equal protection... It would be a huge game changer and would be a quantum leap for the equal rights of trans people in America.

That would be in contradiction to most of everything that we've seen so far. So there were several interesting exchanges between the justices and the Solicitor General for the state of West Virginia, Michael R. Williams, around biology and biological definitions for sex and gender. Title IX permits sex separated teams. It does so because biological sex matters in athletics in ways both obvious and undeniable. And that gives insight into what I believe is like the code that helps you crack what a lot of the anti-trans litigation is about, which is that it could be a backdoor way to undermine the equal protection laws on gender for everyone. How so?

Because if you have a very narrowly defined definition of biological sex, instead of proving that people are discriminating against you because of your perceived gender, which is what it is now, right? then what you have to prove is that someone discriminated against you because of your sex organs. Right. It can be narrowing the basis to bring claims under equal protection. So I think that there's a lot of ways in which the arguments, you know, are not about trans people. They are using the conversation around trans people as a vehicle to achieve these larger, at a minimum, deeply conservative, at a maximum. anti-democratic goals that have been bettered themselves on the right for several decades now.

And that the equal protection law is designed for people who are minorities, people who are marginalized, to be ensured that the government isn't descriptive. against them. And in this case, I actually thought that the people who were arguing on the part of the two trans women who said that they had faced discrimination at the hands of these laws, is that they were saying that I as an individual ought to be able to compete, that I as an individual meet the criteria to be allowed to compete on the women's team. And what they want is for the law to make an assessment of that. Right. And I think that that was the argument of their lawyers, which was that, you know, we are talking about people and we want these people to be allowed to compete in sports because these laws fly in the face of equal protections in the United States. I mean, it's also interesting that at least in Lindsay's case, in the Idaho case, Lindsay has asked the court to drop the case because, you know, she's going to graduate. She's going to graduate soon, either this year or early next year, and has said, look, I'm not going to compete in sports while I am in college. So drop the case. What was interesting is that the lawyers for Idaho said essentially playing up a trope on trans people being non-trustworthy, we're saying we don't believe her. We believe that she's not telling the truth.

that we believe that she is just saying that because she wants you all to drop the case because she believes that she's going to lose and then it's going to come back in and try to get on a team again and we'll be here again discussing these issues. So, I mean, there was just a lot of ways

in which when you parse these arguments and put them together that there was a failure on the part, I would say, of the lawyers on the part of the states to actually recognize the humanity of trans people. Right. When you are using tropes to say, I think that the person is lying, you know, there's long documented history and media of trans people being portrayed as being untrustworthy,

which that relies on. When you say, they're not really enough of them to be discriminated against, so, you know, we shouldn't worry about it. Or you say that they can just go play on the boys' team. So don't worry about it. Why are we even here? Why are we even here today? because they can just go play on the boys team. Like, there's a way in which you are fundamentally not recognizing trans people as people. And I think that that is, you know, frightening. And also, one of the things that makes these laws discriminatory is that they only focus on trans women. Yes.

So that is the question that I've had from the beginning. Why is this squarely focused on trans women and not trans men? Well, I actually interviewed Barbara Ehart, who was the sponsor and passed the first anti-trans sports bill at length. I had talked to her a very long time. I want someone like Lindsay to be able to compete. But, you know, I just don't want Lindsay to be able to take away opportunities for girls of women. So I have a good sense of, like, how they think. And what they say is that women are so fragile in society, that girls are so at risk in society, that girls are the ones that need to be protected.

And that this is about protecting women and girls' sports, the integrity of girls' sports. And the idea here, the trope here that was even brought up again by the lawyer representing West Virginia, when, you know, from the bench came the question of, you know, the person in this case has never gone through male puberty, has lived in entire life as a girl and now as a young woman in every single way imaginable. why can't she compete? And his answer was, what we believe, that there is just such an inherent biological advantage that boys have, that even if you don't go through male puberty,

and even if you go on estrogen and HRT, that inherent advantage that boys and men have cannot be eliminated. And so since it cannot be eliminated, you all have to see that there is this difference. So if you apply that logic to here, they believe that if there are trans men that compete against men, then the inherent biological advantage of men will be at play and that there's no real, quote, threat from the ability of trans men to compete in sports. And that's not true. We know that they're trans men that have competed in a variety of sports against cis men, including Chris Mosier and track and field. And they've done quite well, right?

Like that's, I mean, it's, again, it's this made up kind of world that they're living in. But that's their argument is that girls and women are so fragile that girls and women need to be protected. Meanwhile, I should point out that there's been actually very little protection of women and girls' sports. I mean, look at the rape and abuse scandal in women's gymnastics, where the most competitive and highest ranked women in the world were routinely sexually assaulted in a way where no one around them actually believed them when they were saying that it was happening. So we know that this.

idea of protecting women and girls in sports is a trope. It does not happen. And trans girls' participation in it or not does not make girls more or less safe, right? We need a societal revolution in the way that we see women and girls to make women and girls safe. That has nothing to do with trans people. So, like, I know that the population is small, but like how many out trans athletes are we talking about when we were like who would be affected by this ruling directly? Well, according to the president of the NCAA, out of the half a million collegiate athletes

in the United States right now, he says that there are less than 10 that are trans. Wait, less than 10? Yes. When Utah passed its anti-trans sports legislation in 2022, there was only one trans athlete in the state that would be affected by that law. Yeah. So that means that what we are talking about are not trans people, right?

We are talking about trans people. But the conversation that we're actually having is about gender and about rights and the ability to be who you are. It's not actually about harm being caused because nine people out of a half a million want to compete in college sports.

Coming up. What's actually being done with trans people right now is an experiment on how you can marginalize large swats of the United States, because that's the only way in order to institute what a stated goal of many authoritarians is in this moment, which is minority rule. Stay with us.

This message comes from HomeServe, a burst pipe, a dead water heater, the AC calling it quits. Who do you call? HomeServe is an easy way to handle unexpected home repairs, with plans covering stuff basic homeowners insurance usually won't. Instead of scrambling for a contractor, you make one call to get the repair process started. Join the millions of customers who trust HomeServe right now. Go to homeserv.com slash podcast for 50% less your first year. Savings compared to renewal price, void in Florida.

This message comes from Indiana University. Preparing for tomorrow's careers requires forward-thinking education. Indiana University graduates build on strong foundations to create new possibilities that make a difference where you live. From teachers and nurses strengthening communities to engineers advancing microchip research, Indiana University is investing in tomorrow's workforce through career-ready training. Learn how IU is driving economic growth at IU.edu slash impact. This message comes from Schwab.

With the new Schwab Teen Investor account, teens can gain hands-on investing experience and build positive money habits. It's an account co-owned by you and your teen, so you can monitor and engage with the account while your teen learns how to invest and manage money. Learn more at Schwab.com.

Parker, just Parker, code switch. So the Supreme Court is about to issue a bunch of decisions, including two cases that would uphold state-level bans on trans-feminine athletes competing on girls and women's teams. And I've been talking with Amara Jay Jones, she's founder of trans-slash media, who's been following these cases. Now, just a heads up,

she's going to remind us of two other recent SCOTUS cases. U.S. v. Scrimetti, which upholds a Tennessee ban on gender affirming care, and Bostock v. Jay Clayton County, which protects employees from being discriminated against based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Amara says that based on what she's seen from the court, she has clear expectations of what the outcomes of these athlete cases will probably be. What I would say is that I think given the current composition of the court, it would be a shocker if they ruled that these two trans girls could compete in sports. But I do hear a skepticism from some conservative members of the bench that I didn't hear in Scermetti last year. What were those? What they were skeptical about was

the lack of ability to apply the equal protection claims. There was a lot of wrestling around that. Because the Supreme Court has found that trans people are a class in Bostock. So there's already that precedent. If they were to say that trans people aren't a class in sports, what does that mean for Bostock and what does that mean for their past rulings that were more recent? So I think that they were like kind of really feeling uncomfortable in that space. Also, even Samuel Alito kept coming back to this point and was saying basically through his questioning,

do we have to invalidate all of the laws in the 23 states that allow trans kids to compete? Like basically, how do we write an opinion? This is what his question was, essentially. How do we write an opinion that allows us to keep those laws in place? And so I found that there was a wrestling with the implications as they have to deal with more and more trans cases of understanding the implications of essentially being asked to zero out an entire group of Americans. And that doesn't mean that they won't do it, but I was inclined to think that they would have a desire to rule more narrowly.

So if I had to go based upon what I heard, I think it will be a ruling against. I think they would try to make it as narrow as possible because they've got two other trans cases headed to the Supreme Court.

Wait, what other trans cases are coming down the pike? There is going to be the military case. And then the passport case. Because of the marker. Yeah, can trans. people get passports that match their gender identity. And there are a lot of questions there.

I mean, there's going to be a lot of things that they have to wrestle with in those cases. And I don't think that they felt that they were in a position to rule in such a way that would tie their hands on those future cases. Because even Amy Coney Barrett said, you know, at some point we're going to have to make these other decisions about trans people and like whether or not they are a class or aren't a class. Maybe this would have implications for all kinds of review. Because it seems to me that if you're never talking, in any case in which scrutiny is not talking about a perfect fit, you might have this problem.

So I got a sense that they're not in a position right now to say that they wanted to rule in a way that's going to tie their hands in the future or overturn the cart of negating the laws in states that exist. So the court might have painted themselves into a corner if they vote a certain way? And I think that they were very much wrestling with that, because there was a lot to try to unpack in these cases, and they were wrestling with them. I mean, okay. However, this decision is going to be decided, these girls and young women have already

been banned from doing this very normal thing because they're trans. What do you think about that? All they want to do is to compete in sports because it allows them to feel connected to their schools and make friends. That's why they want to compete in sports. That's why most people compete in sports. Unless you are an elite athlete and, you know, it's your gravy train, you are joining sports because you're good at running or you're good at tennis. And you can play tennis with other people and form relationships and represent your school and feel connected and feel grounded in a way that you don't.

One of the athletes actually behind the Idaho law, Andrea Yearwood is her name. And she was a young black runner in Connecticut who became the focus of a Fox News campaign around trans people in sports. And actually seeing her compete is why Barbara Ehart in Idaho passed her. her bill in order to ban trans women from sports because she said she was really deeply concerned because of Andrea competing 2,000 miles away in Connecticut. But one of the things that Andrea said, and she decided not to run anymore after high school because she was a 17-year-old girl and was targeted by Fox News, the thing that she misses the most

is the ability to have the relationships with other girls. Do you miss it? Oh, of course, 100%. Yes. No, I still watch Collegiate Track Online. I watch NCAA. SEC Conference Meets, NCAA Championships, of course. I miss it. And people often ask me now, like, do you still run? Are you running?

Even if you don't run on a team, do you still, like, go on the jog and stuff? Not as much. I don't run as much now because what I miss from track is team. It's being around my friends and being on a team. And I think if I don't have that, track is so very important to me. but I guess seems really what, like, kept me going, kept me with the sport. So what we were talking about is, are these basic human connections and motivations. And the idea that these people are social Trotskyites trying to overturn the social order

couldn't be further from the truth and the reality of their lived experience. I want to ask you about the organizations like the ADF, the Alliance Defending Freedom, who sponsor anti-trans legislation. What has their role been in these debates? It's very hard to underestimate the role of ADF in bringing us to the breaking point. on a lot of conversations around gender, the roles of men and women, gender identity, and LGBT rights. They are behind the Texas Miffiphrastone case.

They are behind the LGBTQ case. They are behind many of the anti-trans legal cases, including the case in Idaho. where in a move that was unheard of, the solicitor general for the state of Idaho turned over the closing argument at the circuit court level to the Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer, a private lawyer.

And that's because the Alliance Defending Freedom helped write the first anti-trans sports bill, the Idaho bill, that they eventually ended up defending before the circuit court that heard the case. Alliance offending freedom helped to lobby individuals in Idaho to pass the bill. So what we're talking about is an organization that has its arms and finding plaintiffs, finding legislators, lobbying politicians, and then defending and driving legal strategy.

and the Alliance Offending Freedom says that its goal is to enshrine Christian law into the laws of the United States and their breath is hard to underestimate in terms of their reach across the United States and their reach globally.

I'm thinking about like the transatlantic. military ban, which started when President Trump signed an executive order that barred transgender people from enlisting in the military and discharged active duty soldiers. And the Supreme Court upheld Trump's ability to make that decision. And then there was the USV Scrimetti's decision to basically allow state bans on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors. do these recent Supreme Court cases fit into a pattern, you think? Yes.

I mean, I think that they fit into a pattern because they are about putting together a string of arguments and a string of laws to marginalize an entire group of people in the country. And if that's the case, what's actually being done with trans people right now is an experiment on how you can marginalize large swats of the United States, because that's the only way in order to institute what a stated goal of many authoritarians is in this moment, which is minority rule. you're going to have to come up with a mixture of laws, customs, and procedures that allow you to basically strip people of their human rights. So if you don't allow trans people to have access to passports, if you don't allow them to have equal access to health care, if you don't say that they have equal protection under the laws of the country, if you say through an exact, order that hasn't been tested yet in front of the court, but it may be, that trans people actually don't exist. There's no such thing as trans people. Then what you've done is essentially create the cocktail for erasure for an entire group of people. And once that formula is set, what we know in countries that have adopted similar approaches to other groups of people

is that it never stops at that one group of people. That it then expands to the others whom those in control of the state and state power want to erase for their own agenda. And so I think that's the connection. I don't think that there's any coincidence about the selection of the type of cases and the legal arguments made around them

or the executive orders or the claim of those executive orders, I think that all of it is designed to figure out how do you ring fence millions of Americans? And if they are successful in doing that legally, then they have the legal template to expand that to any group of people

that they want to in this country. And that's our show. I remember y'all next week, Code Switch is about to start dropping in your feed on Tuesdays and Fridays. You don't need to do anything? Just listen like you always do. But we thank you. Appreciate you. This episode is produced by Jess Kung. It was edited by Leah Dinella, Dahlia Mortata, and Courtney Stein. And we'd be remiss that we did not shout out the rest of the Code Switch Massive.

That's Christina Kala, Xavier Lopez, Barton Gurdwood, and Yolanda Sanguini. As for me, I'm Gene Demby. I'm Bea Parker. Be easy, y'all. Hydrate.

This message comes from I-XL, providing an online learning environment intended to keep student skills sharp over summer vacation. The platform covers core subjects and adapts to each child's pace. Receive 20% off at iSCHL. This message comes from MintMobile. If you're tired of spending hundreds on big wireless bills, bogus fees, and free perks, MintMobile is for you. Shop plans at mintmobile.com slash switch. Taxes and fees extra. See MintMobile for details. This message comes from Whole Foods Market. The ultimate cookout starts with the ultimate ingredients.

At Whole Foods Market, no antibiotics ever burgers and kebabs, are prepped and ready to throw on the grill. Fire up a juicy ribeye. Grab creamy potato salad and savory flatbreads from the prepared foods department. And round it all out with 365 brand condiments, chips, and dips at everyday low prices. Whole Foods Market. Make your summer sizzle.