Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Are there still boys in girls sports?
Executive Summary
Recent reporting and policy actions show that disputes over transgender athletes competing in female-designated sports remain active and consequential: multiple California high school girls’ volleyball matches were forfeited after opponents refused to play a team with a transgender player, and major institutions and courts have taken concrete steps to limit or adjudicate trans participation at higher levels [1] [2] [3]. At the same time, national policy shifts and litigation — including an NCAA rule change restricting competition to those assigned female at birth and a Supreme Court path for a high-profile case — demonstrate that the issue is now evolving through legal and administrative channels [4] [5] [6].
1. Headlines and hard facts: Forfeits in California spotlight a live controversy
Multiple news accounts from September and October 2025 document that high school girls’ volleyball teams in California have forfeited matches rather than play against a team that includes a transgender athlete, with reporting noting at least eight forfeits by late September and a tenth by mid‑October. Those forfeits are verifiable, contemporaneous events that show opponents acted on principle or policy rather than sport outcome, and they are central to claims that “boys” are competing in girls’ sports at the high school level [2] [3] [1]. These stories capture immediate community disputes, legal filings, and media attention surrounding a single athlete’s participation and district policies.
2. Policy moves: NCAA and White House have taken opposing institutional stances
In February 2025 the NCAA adopted a rule restricting competition in women’s sports to student‑athletes assigned female at birth, while allowing those assigned male at birth to practice but not compete; this administrative change signals a major governing body reasserting eligibility criteria to address competitive fairness concerns [4]. Around the same time the White House issued an executive action aimed at protecting female athletic opportunities and tying federal funding to policies that prevent men from competing in women’s sports, framing the question as one of Title IX enforcement and fairness for cisgender women and girls [5]. Both moves escalated national policy attention.
3. Legal escalation: The Supreme Court is now a battleground
A 2025 Supreme Court procedural decision allowed a lawsuit over transgender athlete participation to proceed, with Idaho’s attorney general seeking a national precedent and advocates for transgender athletes arguing that exclusionary policies violate equal protection and Title IX principles. The court’s engagement elevates a local and state debate to a potential nationwide legal rule‑setting moment, making litigation a central mechanism for resolving competing claims about safety, fairness, and civil rights in sports [6]. This shift means outcomes will be shaped by constitutional interpretation rather than only by school boards or athletic associations.
4. Arguments for inclusion: Historical practice, inclusionary values, and athlete welfare
Advocates for trans inclusion note that transgender athletes have participated in sports for decades, and that inclusive policies promote diversity, opportunity, and the mental‑health benefits of sport for young people. Proponents argue that exclusionary rules are rooted in fear and division rather than evidence, and they point to longstanding inclusion frameworks designed to balance fairness and access [7]. Inclusion advocates typically emphasize individualized assessments and established eligibility routes, arguing that sport benefits accrue to all athletes when policies prioritize participation and respect.
5. Arguments for restriction: Fairness, safety, and competitive balance
Opponents of trans participation in female sports centers argue that biological males have inherent physical advantages that can compromise fairness and safety for cisgender female athletes, urging sex‑segregated competition to protect opportunities and competitive equity. These positions motivated the NCAA’s February rule change and the White House directive, and they underpin litigation seeking constitutional and Title IX validation for sex‑based exclusions [4] [5] [8]. The public controversies and forfeits in California are cited by restriction advocates as empirical evidence of practical impacts at the school‑level.
6. What’s missing from the headlines: data gaps and local policy variation
News reports of forfeits and national policy statements do not settle empirical questions about prevalence, performance differences, or the effectiveness of specific eligibility rules. There is limited systematic, peer‑reviewed data in the provided sources profiling how often transgender athletes compete across levels, or how rule changes affect participation and competitive outcomes, and much of the debate is driven by high‑visibility local cases and policy pronouncements rather than comprehensive studies [1] [7]. As a result, policymakers and courts are making decisions under substantial uncertainty and political pressure.
7. Where this likely goes next: courts, rules, and community responses
Given current trajectories — forfeits and lawsuits at the K‑12 level, NCAA rule changes, a White House directive, and Supreme Court involvement — the issue will be resolved through a mix of litigation and institutional rule‑making. Expect further state and school board actions, legal challenges aiming for national precedents, and continued public contention around individual cases [4] [5] [6]. Short‑term effects will include localized disruptions like forfeits, while long‑term resolution depends on judicial interpretation of constitutional and Title IX claims alongside evolving administrative policies.