At one tense moment during the session, Justice Samuel Alito questioned ACLU attorney Kathleen Hartnett, who was defending the inclusion of transgender girls on female teams. He asked a deceptively simple but profound question: “What does it mean to be a boy, a girl, a man, or a woman?” Hartnett struggled to respond, highlighting the difficulties the left faces when attempting to legally redefine sex.
The exchange went as follows:
Justice Alito: “Well, to pick up on the issue of discrimination on the basis of transgender status, let me just go back to—let me go to some basics. Do you agree that a school may have separate teams for a category of students classified as boys and a category of students classified as girls?” Hartnett: “Yes, Your Honor.” Justice Alito: “If it does that, then is it not necessary for there to be, for equal protection purposes, if that is challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, an understanding of what it means to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?” Hartnett: “Yes, Your Honor.” Justice Alito: “And what is that definition? For equal protection purposes, what does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?” Hartnett: “Sorry, I misunderstood your question… We do not have a definition for the Court.”
Watch:
Absolutely incredible…
JUSTICE ALITO: To decide if there’s discrimination on the basis of sex, we need to define what sex is, right?
ACLU lawyer: Yes, your honor.
ALITO: What does it mean to be a man or woman, a boy or girl?
The ACLU lawyer appeared flustered, illustrating the confusion inherent in arguments that attempt to separate gender identity from biological sex. Alito’s questioning exposed a critical flaw in leftist legal reasoning: how can courts ensure fairness and protect privacy without even agreeing on the definition of sex?
Across the country, Republican-led states have already implemented laws designed to protect young girls in sports. These laws ensure that female athletes’ years of dedication, training, and hard work are not overshadowed or unfairly taken by boys who identify as female. Critics argue that transgender athletes competing against girls often dominate competitions, despite having biological advantages that cannot be erased by hormone therapy.
In the conservative view, these policies are about safeguarding both fairness and opportunity. “Girls and women have earned the right to compete on an even playing field,” one advocate stated. “Allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports undermines decades of progress in women’s athletics.”
As the Supreme Court weighs these landmark cases, the nation watches closely. The rulings could determine the future of women’s sports, school privacy policies, and the broader debate over gender identity in public life. For now, the message from Republican lawmakers is clear: protecting girls’ sports is not just policy—it’s a matter of fairness, safety, and justice.
