Transgender Women on College Athletic Teams — The Case of Lindsay Hecox

This perspective article examines the implications of Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which bars transgender girls and women from participating in female athletic teams. The law, challenged by transgender athlete Lindsay Hecox and a cisgender high school student, raises questions about fairness, scientific validity, and constitutional rights. The author critiques the law’s reliance on contested biological markers (e.g., testosterone levels) and highlights the lack of robust evidence supporting claims of inherent athletic advantage for transgender women post hormone therapy. The article also discusses the potential influence of the Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County decision on Title IX interpretations and advocates for nuanced, sport-specific accommodations to protect the rights of both cisgender and transgender athletes.

This perspective article examines the implications of Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which bars transgender girls and women from participating in female athletic teams. The law, challenged by transgender athlete Lindsay Hecox and a cisgender high school student, raises questions about fairness, scientific validity, and constitutional rights. The author critiques the law’s reliance on contested biological markers (e.g., testosterone levels) and highlights the lack of robust evidence supporting claims of inherent athletic advantage for transgender women post hormone therapy. The article also discusses the potential influence of the Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County decision on Title IX interpretations and advocates for nuanced, sport-specific accommodations to protect the rights of both cisgender and transgender athletes.