What the Supreme Court Is Examining in the Debate Over Women’s Sports

Before Title IX and before women had broad access to organized team sports, there was Babe Didrikson Zaharias. As a young girl, Babe was my hero. I remember writing a grade-school report about her because I wanted others to understand how exceptional she was and what she navigated as a female athlete in an era with limited opportunities. In the 1930s, women’s athletic participation was largely confined to individual sports, not because of a lack of interest or ability, but because organized team sports for girls were rare, inconsistent, and unprotected.

Babe Didrikson Zaharias

Historical records show that Babe did participate in team competition on limited occasions, but those opportunities were exceptional and informal by modern standards—nothing resembling today’s widespread youth team sports programs such as AYSO soccer. Most of her career unfolded in individual sports, where success brought scrutiny as well as recognition. When structured opportunities for women did not exist, she helped create them, most notably through her role in founding the LPGA. Her experience illustrates that women’s sports were not inherently fragile, but structurally limited.

That history did not end with Babe

When I first stepped onto a team field as a young girl, girls were only beginning to gain access to organized team sports. There were no established pipelines and no certainty that opportunities would continue. Participation depended heavily on rules being respected and protections remaining in place.

I also experienced discrimination directly. At one point, I was placed into a lower level of play so that I would not displace boys from roster positions. I played baseball on teams prior to the boys entering puberty. As physical differences became more pronounced, I developed safety concerns and ultimately stopped playing after reaching the highest level available to me at the time, Pony League. At that age, I interpreted the decision as personal failure. In hindsight, I recognize it as a response to physical risk and structural limitations rather than a lack of ability.

Suzanne Rampe 1st year playing baseball

Later, even after Title IX had been enacted, school administrators chose not to allow me to compete at the junior varsity or varsity level in water polo, despite the law technically permitting participation. At the time, I did not fully understand that decision. With perspective, I now see it as an effort to prioritize safety and competitive equity. Over time, those decisions contributed to the development of fully separate women’s programs, including today’s all-women’s water polo.

These experiences shape how I view the current legal debate

It is one reason I followed closely when the Supreme Court of the United States began considering cases involving the participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports. The issue reached the Court because states, athletes, and lower courts have reached differing conclusions about how federal law applies to sex-based athletic categories.

At its core, the Court is examining questions that have long been central to women’s sports: the purpose of sex-based categories, how fairness is defined in athletic competition, and how changes to eligibility standards affect competitive outcomes.

The Supreme Court is reviewing challenges to state laws that limit participation in women’s sports to biological females. States argue that these laws are consistent with Title IX’s original purpose and are intended to preserve competitive equity and safety. Lower courts have issued conflicting rulings, particularly regarding the interpretation of Title IX and constitutional equal protection, prompting the Court’s review.

Attorneys representing the states maintain that biological differences are relevant in athletic performance and that sex-based categories exist to ensure equal opportunity for female athletes. Attorneys representing transgender athletes argue that exclusion based on gender identity constitutes discrimination and that eligibility determinations should account for individual circumstances.

During oral arguments, the justices explored several related questions, including whether sex-based athletic categories undermine or support equality, whether Title IX was intended to redefine sex classifications, and how constitutional protections should be applied in this context. For women who competed before Title IX was fully implemented, these questions echo earlier debates about access, legitimacy, and protection in women’s sports.

Why does this matter in practical terms?

As of August 2024, data discussed in relation to these cases indicates that 29 sports have been affected, involving approximately 600 athletes across roughly 400 competitions worldwide, with an estimated 890 medals no longer awarded to female athletes. Those medals were awarded to transgender athletes classified as male at birth who competed in women’s categories.

These figures are not abstract to me. I remember the physical demands of elite training. At USC, my preparation included approximately five hours per day in the gym, followed by additional time in the weight room to develop strength. Even on designated rest days, training continued through track workouts or early-morning pool sessions focused on conditioning and strength development. Progress required sustained discipline and physical effort.

USC volleyball: Suzanne Rampe 1982-1984

That level of preparation is reflected in every podium finish. When eligibility standards change, outcomes change as well. For female athletes, those changes can affect scholarships, rankings, and career trajectories, particularly in a system where opportunities have historically been more limited.

Women’s sports were established to ensure that female athletes could compete in environments designed around comparable physical baselines. This framework was intended to support fairness and opportunity, not exclusion.

Babe Didrikson Zaharias was my hero because she competed within the constraints of her era while working to expand opportunity for others. Women before and after her navigated discrimination, resistance, and risk to build the foundation that exists today. I experienced the moment when access expanded—and I benefited from protections that made participation possible.

The Supreme Court’s consideration of these cases underscores their significance. The Court’s decisions will influence how sex-based athletic categories are defined and protected moving forward, and how future generations of girls understand the rules governing fair competition.

Women’s sports have always required deliberate protection. The question now is how those protections are interpreted and applied in a changing legal landscape.

Because opportunities gained should never become opportunities lost.

Why Moms for Liberty Nevada Is Leading This Mission

Moms for Liberty Nevada is built for parents who don’t just want information, they want action, advocacy, and a statewide movement protecting parental rights in every classroom and at every school board meeting. School choice is one component, not the whole story. Parents need guidance, updates, legislative insight, and a network that fights with them, not above them.

If you want to stay ahead of education policy, understand how to navigate Nevada’s shifting

school landscape, and join a coalition that is reshaping the direction of our schools:

Join Us Written by Suzanne Littrell

Contributor | Former Collegiate Athlete and Advocate for Women’s Sports