The Daily Signal - Trans Activists Are Know ‘They're 'on the Losing Side' of Women's Sports, Lawyer Says

Episode Date: January 15, 2026

The pro-transgender lawyers arguing for men's ability to compete in women's sports have begun to realize they have a losing hand, and it's making them desperate, according to a lawyer on the other side of the issue. "I think the other side is starting to recognize they're on the losing side of this issue culturally, politically, in every way," Matt Sharp, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Signal in an interview Tuesday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I in some ways think it's cowardly for somebody, especially like Gavin Newsom, who said, you know, when he did the podcast with Charlie Kirk, that he doesn't think that men should be competing with women, but then he doesn't go around and try to put in a legislation to protect women because it's sports is all about someone's physical capabilities being on display. It's not about what you feel, what you think. It's about your anatomy, and that's it. And it's clear, you know, why we have women's sports as opposed to have. having men's sports or co-ed sports, which women would almost never have the chance to compete. This is Tyler O'Neill, a senior editor at The Daily Signal. I'm honored to be joined by Selena Sol and Matt Sharp, who is Senior Counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom. We are speaking on Tuesday, the 13th of January, which is the day that the Supreme Court finally is considering laws upholding fairness in women's sports.

And I'm just honored to have both of you with us for this discussion. Thank you for having me. Yeah, privileged to be here. So we'll just start with you, Selena. Your story is very personal. You had to race against, you had to compete against biological males, and you spoke out against it, filed a Title IX complaint, and have a lawsuit that is still active to this day. would you talk briefly about why this issue is so important to you? This issue is so important to me because I know firsthand what it's like to be forced to compete against male athletes.

I had to race against not one but two of them throughout all four years of high school in the short sprint events. And I raced against them a couple of times a meet. And I competed against them almost every single weekend. So I raced against them dozens and dozens of times and I was never close to winning a single race. For example, in the 100 meter dash, the two of them would be at the finish line chest bumping each other while the rest of us girls were at the 80 meter mark. So it was just never a fair contest. And I didn't matter if I broke my school record that there was nothing I could do to be on the top of that podium and to get that gold medal. And then in my junior year in 2019 at the indoor State Open Championship meet, I missed out on qualifying for the indoor New England championships in the 55 meter dash by just two spots.

with, of course, those top two spots being taken by the male athletes. So if they weren't there, I would have qualified in the 55. And I had to sit at that New England meet and watch the 55 go on without me, knowing that I should have been there because I qualified for the meet into other events where I ended up receiving on New England honors. So it was a heartbreaking thing to have to go through. And I had friends in that race. I was torn between wanting to support them and root for them

and knowing that I should have been there and compete on a much faster track and potentially put out a faster time and put myself into better contention with college scouts because there are scouts that come to these big regional meets. So it was just a heartbreaking thing to have to go through. And I said enough is enough. And if the adults in Connecticut don't want to do anything to protect us, then I need to be the one to stand up. Because at that point, my mom was doing most of the advocacy. I was doing a little bit.

I was speaking out in local newspapers and local news networks. But I was 15 years old when I started this. So I didn't know what was going to happen. I was myself a little afraid of any potential retaliation that I could be receiving. But once I lost out on qualifying for New England's, I said enough is enough. And I need to just stand up and fight for my right to fair competition. And Matt, how many cases like Salinas has ADF taken up? Can you give us kind of a lay of the land of the litigation on women's sports?

Sure. So really Selena's case was the first one, really nationally, where you had a group of female athletes saying this is wrong, this policy is wrong. And so we filed that in Connecticut in 2020. And then since then, we had some of the cases bubbling out of the Biden administration, the Title IX rule that they tried to push to institute this nationwide. We had several athletes that we were representing there, along with teachers, schools, and others challenging that and got some great victories in that regard. So the Biden rule was pushed off the table. but we still have this situation where states like Connecticut and others still have these bad laws. We right now have a case going on in Minnesota, challenging their policy that's allowing men to compete in women's sports. In fact, that case is going to be argued this week as well. So we've sort of got a two for a case going on, one at the U.S. Supreme Court, one on behalf of these athletes in Minnesota. Beyond that, we've got several cases where we are helping to defend some of the state laws that have passed. So we've got athletes in Idaho, West Virginia, and other states that have intervened in lawsuits where the ACLU has challenged the law protecting fairness in women's sports.

And we're there with those athletes saying these laws are important to us because these lawmakers wanted to prevent happening in those states what happened to Selena, what happened to the athletes in Minnesota, what happened to Riley Gaines and others like her. They wanted those protections to be there. And these athletes were representing or saying courts uphold these laws because without them, we know we're going to end up with an environment where men are dominating women's sport. So across the country, several of these cases are still ongoing, and so much really hinges on what the Supreme Court does with arguments we heard. So we heard this morning, I think one of the best moments was when Justice Alito asks, you know, what does sex mean?

How can you say that a law discriminates on the basis of sex against people who identify as transgender? when you don't even have a clear definition of what sex means, do you think that argument is going to resonate? And what other arguments did you hear that might convince the court? Yeah, I think that is one of the key arguments. From the very beginning, the ACLU and other groups have been pushing this effort to redefine what sex means, to say you are a woman, if you think you are a woman, if you identify as a woman, if you've had puberty blockers or hormones. But science and common sense tells us none of that changes whether you're male and female. Your sex is written into every single cell of your body. And so when we're looking at federal laws like Title IX or equal

protection to properly understand what it means to not discriminate based on sex, you have to start off with, well, what is sex? And so we appreciated the justices highlighting that and calling out just the ridiculousness of these other arguments that try and erase the differences between men and women. I mean, look, you go back just a few years ago, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself, while ruling that women should be allowed to be admitted into the Virginia Military Institute still said, but the physiological differences between men and women still necessitate things like separate physical fitness test, that you're going to have separate standards for men and women. You still need separate housing for men and women. Well, that's exactly what Title IX says. No discrimination in education, but still you can have separate dormitories and restrooms and locker rooms and, yes, sports.

So at the end of the day, understanding those differences between male and men, and female, understanding the differences between sex and how those play out in sports is integral. Because for Congress to say no discrimination on sex, but when sex matters, when those differences matter, yes, you can't have separate programs. You've got to have that basic understanding to understand the intent behind Title IX and laws like it. And Selena, how does this strike you when you see, you know, historic civil rights organizations like the ACLU, taking up the case for men to compete against women and women's sports. What does that make you think of? How do you feel in response to that?

It's a little frustrating sometimes that they are choosing to side with the men instead of protecting women because sports are all about biology. They're not about identity. And there are great, as Matt said, there are great physical differences between men and women. And that leads to men performing at a much higher level than women. If you look at the world records, for example, in track and field, Usain Bolt has the men's 200-meter world record with 1919, and Florence Griffith Joyner has the women's 200-meter world record, and I believe her time is 2134. That's a second and a half difference, which to people that don't do sprints, that might not seem like a lot, but that's like a 20-30-meter difference. So that's not a close contest at all. And then there are even different,

rules in sports for men versus women. So in track and field, the men's hurdle height for any of the, they're the, I guess with a hundred, 10 meter hurdles a little bit different because they have an extra 10 meters, but the intermediate hurdles, the 400 meter hurdles, the hurdle height for the men is taller than it is for the women. And they have a different placement that they are because men have a longer stride than women. in volleyball, the net is seven inches taller for men than for women. In shot put, in the track and field and shot put, the men's shot putt is almost double the size of the women's. And even in a sport like lacrosse, men have a full helmet that they wear versus women

usually just wear goggles and a little mouth guard. And I think that all of that is just kind of evidence alone that there are physical differences between men and women and title nine was enacted 54 years ago for a reason. And it was enacted to give women a chance to compete. Because before then, women couldn't stand a chance to compete on a boys' team or join a boy's soccer team or anything like that. There wasn't a spot left of them. So I think it's important that we uphold that legislation.

So, and Matt, I was shocked in 2020 with the ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, where, you know, and we all. Remember how the Biden administration kind of weaponize the center of that ruling. And Bostock very clearly said, look, we're only ruling that for Title VII purposes, federal or employees can't be fired for identifying as gay or transgender. But they said this doesn't apply to bathrooms. It doesn't apply to sports. Then, lo and behold, the Biden administration says, oh, it does apply to these.

We're going to apply Bostock to everything by which they mean taking that sentence out of the ruling and then weaponizing it to force gender ideology on all of us. And part of me is sitting here thinking, well, if Neil Gorsuch has an opportunity, is he going to almost correct the record and say, look, this is not what I met in Bostock? And maybe I didn't make the right decision in Bostock. Yeah, we would hope so. we saw even from like you mentioned in the bostock decision a recognition that title seven and the employment context the question of should someone be fired because they identify as transgender or whatever is very different from these questions of sports is very different than the question of women's dormitories or locker rooms the difference is very much matter there and that's why we saw that language in bostock

but as you said since then we've seen this effort from the ACLU from the bide administration and others to say well, Bostock applies everywhere, not just Title VII, but Title IX, even pushing it into the Constitution and to say that the Equal Protection Clause applies to gender identity and trying to push something into the Constitution that our founders never would have imagined. But that's why these cases are so important, because I hope it gives the court the opportunity to cabin in that Bostock decision, to say, at a minimum, it doesn't apply to Title IX, which has entirely different considerations, applying to the education context, that has specific carve-outs for dorms, for restrooms for other things, recognizing that in the education context, sex quite often does

matter, that you can't have those separate programs or opportunities for housing for men and women. But we would love to consider you to see the court cabined that in and recognize when the state is looking at the safety of women, when it's looking at fairness, when it's looking at privacy, when you hear stories of women being harassed, sexually harassed in their locker rooms by a man coming in, the state has an interest in that regard of saying, no, men do not belong here, no matter how you identify, and your identity does not determine whether you get to intrude in these women's spaces or take away these opportunities. So I hope in all this, not only do we get a great victory upholding the Idaho and West Virginia laws and the laws of 25 states that have done this,

but ultimately some recognition that outside of the narrow confines of Vostok, yes, the state has a strong interest in protecting women's privacy safety and fairness on the playing field. Well, and Selena, we've seen almost like throat clearing, Democrats like Gavin Newsom saying, look, I realize there's an unfairness here of males competing in women's sports and then not changing any policies about it. I mean, we almost see the Democratic Party clearing their throats and saying, look, we realize there might be a problem here, but we're not actually going to do anything to address it. How does that strike you as someone who is harmed by these sort of policies?

I in some ways think it's cowardly for somebody, especially like Gavin Newsom, who said, you know, when he did the podcast with Charlie Kirk, that he doesn't think that men should be competing with women, but then he doesn't go around and try to put in a legislation to protect women because it's sports is all about someone's physical capabilities being on display. It's not about what you feel, what you think. It's about your anatomy, and that's it. And it's clear, you know, why we have women's sports as opposed to having men's sports or co-ed sports, which women would almost never have the chance to compete in. So I truly wish that more people would just stand up for women and protect us and ensure that

we have our own category where we can compete fairly and safely and that we can actually have a chance to earn that gold medal instead of just earning a participation trophy. And Matt, I want to get a little bit, because this is a worldview issue, and because you're here representing ADF, I want to take the point of personal privilege and ask you a question about the Southern Poverty Law Center and about the way that our culture almost demonizes the people who are standing for religious freedom for fairness in women's sports. I mean, ADF has an entire report. They called the Captain Report. saying that any disagreement with gender affirming care, which the HHS now rightly calls sex rejecting procedures, is ipso facto, scientific, hateful, you know, pushing Christian supremacy on the country. How has this impacted your ability to make arguments in court or, you know, ADF standing in the world? And how, what does ADF think is the smartest way to do? respond to this. Well, we saw, as you said, very early on, as ADF was taking positions on this,

recognizing that we need to engage in women's sports. We need to engage in these efforts to push gender identity everywhere in law and policy, from the sports to the locker room, to the restroom, to the employment context, to even telling churches that if they open their doors and have a spaghetti dinner, that they have to allow a man to use the women's restroom at the church. It's ridiculous. But for that stand, we found ourselves placed on the SPLC's hate list. And not just us, but more and more groups that were likewise saying, this is wrong. Gender ideology is dangerous. It is corrupting so many things. It harms everything its touch. And most importantly, it harms women like Selena and others that are the

victims of this ideology that are losing out on championships and medals. For that stand, we found ourselves put on this list and so many others. But then we started seeing it come up in court because we had some of our cases where the judges were trying to tell us, as we're advocating that men do not belong in women's sports telling us you can't call that person a man. And we said, well, judge, like this very much matters. The science matters here and proper terminology matters because the moment I start saying, well, this is a trans woman, this is a woman competing in women's sports, I'm now losing any coherence in my argument. To say that a man doesn't belong in women's sports, I have to accurately identify who is a man and who is not a man

to make that. And so we see how this effort to punish and silence those who, who stood against gender ideology was impacting Selena and other speaking out on it. It was impacting lawmakers as they're trying to pass these laws and finding themselves shouted down and harassed as they're doing so. And even in the courtroom as advocates are being challenged in their ability to accurately talk about these cases by judges that said, no, you can't say that or you have to use this terminology. This is the danger of gender ideology. It corrupts and infects everything that it touches and makes it where just a common conversation

of who belongs in a men's or who belongs in a women's sports, who belongs in a women's locker room becomes difficult to make. That's why precision of language matters, but that's ultimately why the SPLC, the harm of what it does, because by its hate list and everything it did, it was making it so much more difficult for so many voices to be able to speak out on these issues without repercussion, without fear. And that's why we've been very appreciative of you and you're calling them out and holding them accountable for that. And it's had a huge impact and freeing people to be able to speak out on this issue and accurately define what it means to be man and woman, but more importantly, to stand for women like Selena and the cause that they are

fighting for for fairness and sports. When Selena, we hear a lot from the left about toxic masculinity, about, you know, male supremacy, about various other things. And to me, there is nothing more toxicly masculine than identifying as a woman in order to succeed. at sports when you can't otherwise. Is there some hypocrisy there that you see from these arguments? I definitely think there is some hypocrisy there. And for a lot of them, it's almost like they think

all there is to being a woman is just, you know, lipstick long hair and a pair of high heels, which as anyone will tell you, there is a lot more to being a woman than just that. And it's kind of offensive to us that they create themselves, based off of a stereotype of women. And I mean, yeah, look at me. I mean, heels, you know, long hair and lipstick,

but that's not that all there is to me. I have many other interests and likes and everything, you know, unrelated to my identity. And I feel like identity shouldn't be the only thing. And at least in terms of, you know, sports and our issue, we're only talking about the physicality of these different individuals and their biology. And that's it.

That's all we're talking about. all we're referring to. Yeah. Well, were there any other arguments that you saw, Matt, in the, in the debate today before the Supreme Court, that you thought maybe a defense of the other side that really surprised you? Yeah. One of the things that came out, I think the other side is starting to recognize they're on the losing side of this issue, culturally, politically, in every way, because they're starting to make the case. Well, we're really only talking about boys that have been on puberty blockers or hormones or something so that there is no sports advantage. That's what they're trying to narrow the case. These cases are different. We're not talking about the male that, you know,

30-year-old guy that all of a sudden decides he's a woman and switches and has obvious competitive advantages. We're talking about someone that has, you know, been on hormones or something like that. Well, there's a lot of flaws with that argument. First and foremost, no amount of puberty blockers, no amount of hormones, now amount of surgery changes a man into a woman. it. Your sex is written into every single cell of your body. And this goes back to that point we were discussing earlier. To properly understand sex, you have to understand like it is intrinsically rooted in our physiology, our biology, our genetics, and nothing changes that. So to see them sort of try and push back, well, you know, there are really no differences. I think it's just wrong in terms of what it means to be male and female. But even the science undermines that claim, because there's some great

reports that have come out saying that even beginning at age six, before a boy goes through puberty, there starts being some performance differences between boys and girls. I think there was a study out of Greece that saw that even, you know, six to 10 year olds, boys were able to jump further, some more push-ups and things like that. So those differences, those God-created differences begin to emerge very, very early on. And that's why even in middle school, you start saying we're going to have the boys team and the girls team because it creates so many opportunities for young women to compete in sports and to win that would not be available if you just threw them all together and just had a all-comers team. So even science undermines their argument that puberty blockers

or hormones takes away this athletic advantage because it does not. And we can see that even in Salinas case or in the West Virginia case where these individuals are still dominating in their sports after being on hormones or puberty blockers. Those differences are there. They cannot be taken away by any surgeries or hormones. And so I think that's, That's a very disingenuous argument for them to be making at the 11th hour to try and narrow the case and say, well, we're just talking about this particular male or that particular male. At the end of the day, the state has an interest to say no male belongs in women's sports. No matter how you identify, no matter what drugs or surgeries have you done, we are going to preserve the integrity of the women's category. Because the moment you crack that door open and the moment you allow one male to come in and say, well, he maybe doesn't have as many athletic at advantages. Well, then, Does another male come along and say, I'm not a good athlete? I ought to be on the girls team. And you end up with the entire girls category. That may be the only place I could ever be a champion. But we don't have that. We recognize we want to preserve women's track and field. We want to preserve women's swimming. We want to preserve all of these categories.

Because without that, we're going to just have women being spectators in their own sports. And without that, we don't get champions like Selena, like Chelsea, like Riley Gaines, like all of these others that deserve to be champions. And I would say that's even in Selena's case, one of the things we're still fighting for, we want those records restored. We want the recognition that Selena and the hard work she put in every morning waking up just to shave a fraction of a second offer at her time. She deserves recognition for that. And that's what we want restored. Yeah. I think that's a good segue to talk about where your case has ended up, Selena. What is the current status right now? I think Matt would be better to answer this. but it's kind of sad to say, but after five years, five, six years, we're basically back to

square one in Connecticut. Yeah, they, we're trying to, unfortunately, throw out the lawsuit, because after this case was filed, obviously Selena and the other athletes were representing, they graduated. So they want to say, well, the case is moot. You're not in school there anymore. And that was the initial battle that we were having is keeping this case alive. And you can imagine if that's the case, well, would any girl ever be able to, to challenge one of these policies? Because very likely, she's going to graduate and move on, and then the process starts again. And another generation of young women are losing on these opportunities. So the good news is when we challenge that, we got a good ruling from the

Second Circuit Court of Appeals recognizing that Selena and the other young women that were representing suffered concrete harm in the loss of their championships and the loss of spots on the podium. So the case is still very much alive and well. But like Celine said, it shouldn't have gone on this long. But that's where we're hopeful that a strong, victory in the Hickox and BPJ case at the Supreme Court, even though it may be focused on upholding the laws of those two states and the 25 other states that have done it, that there's going to be some principles there about that right to fairness, that right to equal opportunities, that then helps us in Salina's case and some of the other cases that we're going to not just

uphold good laws, but to strike down the bad laws in Connecticut and other states so that what happened to Selena is never repeated to any girl anywhere in the country. Yeah. Well, I think that's a powerful place to stop. Thank you so much, Selena and Matt Sharp for joining us. And is there anything else you'd like to add? I would just like to say that we're not trying to prevent anybody from competing. They just need to compete where it's most fair to everybody involved and what lines up with their anatomy. And in the case of these individuals, that means competing in the men's category. Yeah. And I just like to add courage begets. courage. And the reason we're at the Supreme Court today is because this incredible young woman spoke out when no one else was willing to. Her courage is what led to the lawmakers in Idaho and West Virginia saying, we see what happened to Selena. We don't want this repeated. So the whole reason

we're here today is because courageous women like Selena spoke up and said, this is wrong. And I just encourage people, continue to speak out when we see these things, continue to speak out when we see gender ideology undermining opportunities for women or parental rights or whatever may be, because that's how change starts with someone having the courage to say, this is wrong and I'm not going to stand for it. Yeah, you definitely have a bigger support group than you might think when speaking out on this issue. That's so encouraging.

Well, thank you again so much for joining us. Thank you.