Two recent court rulings affirmed what never should have been in doubt: Biology is central to our human identity.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld laws from Idaho and West Virginia that prohibited biological males from participating in female sports.
The Idaho case is precisely the kind we’ve written about before, in which a biological male wants to compete against biological females, this time on the Boise State University track team. It’s not misogynist to acknowledge what every medical textbook and common sense agree on: Male puberty changes a person’s body in all kinds of ways, from bone density to muscle mass, that give that person an athletic advantage.
Idaho has every right to exclude transgender girls and women from biological girls’ and women’s sports. Doing so is protecting women, not oppressing them. The only way that gets confusing is if we jettison the definitions of man and woman that have held for millions of years.
The West Virginia case is less clear because the athlete there is 15 years old and takes medicine to stave off the onset of male puberty. We hesitate to endorse systems of total division and exclusion at young ages. It often can be healthy for grade school boys and girls to play together. Some flexibility is necessary, and certain complex situations need to be judged on a common-sense, case-by-case basis.
Nevertheless, states should have the right to make laws that broadly protect women’s sports and the ability of girls and women to fairly compete against one another.
On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court sided with a former Fort Worth resident named Soren Aldaco who is suing her caregivers, saying she was pressured into undergoing gender transition.
Aldaco is among many people who have said they were pushed into surgical solutions for psychological issues. Many of those are “detransitioning,” seeking to return to their sex at birth. Others are suing.
Under the Texas Medical Liability Act, passed in 2003, plaintiffs must file claims against their medical providers within two years of the date of the tort. At issue in Aldaco’s case was when the alleged harm occurred (the date of her double mastectomy or the date her therapist wrote a letter of referral for it) and the date when she took legal action (the lawsuit’s filing or a pre-suit letter of intent).
Those gray areas might get clearer soon. A coalition of 60 members of the Texas House signed a statement in February in support of Aldaco’s claims and promised to advance legislation that makes it easier for plaintiffs like her in a state with some of the most pro-doctor tort laws on the books.
The details of these cases are complex and subjective because they deal with matters of sexuality, self-image and humanity. Our laws should respect the dignity of every person. But they should also embrace common sense. To us, that’s what happened in the highest courts in Austin and Washington.
Have thoughts about this? Send a letter to the editor using our letters form or email letters@dallasnews.com. Letters should be no more than 200 words and include the first and last name of the writer and city of residence.