in a choice that might provide the U. S. A three-judge section on the U.S. Supreme Court with the opportunity to define the registration of transgender athletes countrywide. S. A 13-year-old transgender child is allowed to compete on her school’s cross-country and track teams by Title IX, according to a court of appeals for the Fifth Circuit next week. B. P. J. v. West Virginia Board of Education, Inc. centers on a West Virginia statute, which was first introduced as the “Save Women’s Sports Act, ” which states that “students of the male sex ” are not allowed to play on girls and women’s teams. According to the Act, a person can define as a person whose natural sexual is female. ” Judge Toby Heytens wrote the Act ’s “sole purpose, ” and “sole effect, ” are to “prevent transgender girls from playing on girls teams. The Act is comparable to laws in nearly two dozen other states that forbid transgender women from joining women teams. B. P. J. has been a child since the fourth grade, and the position gave her a birth certificate that recognized her new title and listed her as a woman. Puberty-blocking treatment and progesterone hormone therapy, Heytens explained, have led B. P. J. to “develop the outer physical characteristics —including large supply, vaginal shape and bone size—of an adolescent girl. ” B. P. J. raises both a Title IX state and an Equal Protection Clause claim, which argue that the state is treating her separately without sufficient justification. The accused, which include the position activities payment and the board of education in Harrison County, insist that transgender girls ‘ exclusion should be justified by their own interests and safety. However, Heytens claimed that the accused did not seriously challenge the contention that B. P. J. The government’s significant concern for student safety is closely related to the non-contact sport of cross-country or track. ” The government’s involvement in competitive justice, Heytens reasoned, is more believable. B. P. J. presented professional evidence attempting to disprove this explanation. Transgender girls with her “background and characteristics, ” she argued, do not possess “inherent, biologically-based ” competitive advantages over cisgender girls. The defendants cited an expert report that claimed that are “significant biological differences ” and numerous performance benefits for transgender women. To evaluate the Equal Protection Clause say, the judge argued that more thought was needed at the trial court level. Heytens doubted the notion that the government should regulate the government’s ability to shield cisgender girls from having to compete with trans girls” when the outcome is to damage trans girls.” He potentially inquired as to whether a condition may defend “otherwise illegal discrimination” when a transgender girl on a middle school track team falls from 15th place to 16th place at a countywide competition because a girl who also runs track just moved to the county and improved. “Of course not, ” he wrote. The government has no desire to ensure that transgender girls never lose to transgender girls, nor does it care about protecting one girl’s position in any opposition. Heytens argued that B should have been granted summary wisdom. P. J. on her Title IX state. The prosecutor argued that Title IX and the Act explicitly prohibits transgender women from playing on teams that are “congruent with their sex identity, ” which makes them discriminated against. Heytens even emphasized that offering B. P. J. There is no real choice at all between playing on a boys group and no playing sports. The plaintiffs may honestly believe B, the determine wrote. P. J. did “countermand her social change, her medical care, and all the work she has done with her schools, instructors, and coaches for roughly half her life by introducing herself to teammates, coaches, and even opponents as a child.” B would also be forced to play on a kids group. P. J. The plaintiffs claim that cisgender girls face the same dangers of unfair competition and physical harm, which they contend are troubling. In a dissenting opinion, Judge G. Information, according to Steven Agee, shows B. P. J. may have a specific biological advantage over natural girls and is thus not geographically equivalent to biological girls. According to Agee, “ensuring equal opportunities for natural women requires that they not had to contend against biological boys.” ” He noted that B. P. J. repeatedly robbed biological girls of opportunities by constantly placing in the top 15 at competitions. Agee even argued the lot disregards Title IX, which he wrote “most of the state has understood … to prevent biological-sex discrimination rather than gender-identity prejudice. ” He maintained Title IX, which became law in 1972, is intended to guarantee educational and athletic opportunities for biological women, not to forbid gender identity discrimination. The ruling comes as a new federal lawsuit, Gaines et al. v. NCAA et al. , demands the NCAA rescind the eligibility of transgender athletes. Meanwhile, the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics recently banned transgender athletes for all women’s sports other than for two co-ed sports, competitive cheer and competitive dance. The Biden administration punted on the issue of transgender athletes’ eligibility last week when it announced new Title IX rules that address harassment against gender identity within the context of sex-based harassment. The defendants from West Virginia could ask for a rehearing on banc before the court, where other court judges would take B into consideration. P. J. ’s case. They could petition the U.S. if that effort fails. S. Supreme Court and hope for a decision. The Supreme Court might feel the need to weigh in given the state split over transgender athlete eligibility and the possibility of numerous federal and state litigations over that matter. In Bostock v. Clayton County ( 2021 ), the Court held that employment-related sex discrimination outlawed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act includes discrimination based on being gay or transgender. Although Title IX and employment and athletics are distinct contexts, transgender athletes are more likely to prevail if a majority of the Court interprets sex-based anti-discrimination statutes as considering gender identity.