WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that states can ban transgender women and girls from playing on female sports teams . . . .
. . . . Twenty-seven states limit school sports for women and girls to athletes whose biological sex is female. In the remaining states, transgender athletes can compete on teams that align with their gender identity.
The court’s decision effectively upheld the state bans, but it doesn’t require other states to impose such restrictions.
President Trump on Tuesday hailed the opinion, saying in part that the court “just RULED AGAINST MEN PLAYING IN WOMEN’S SPORTS.” . . . .
—The Wall Street Journal, July 1, 2026
Donald Trump wasn’t the only supporter of the sanctity of girls and women’s sports to rejoice last week when the U. S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the right of states to protect female athletics was announced.
But his comment suggests a more sweeping decision than actually was reached.
Twenty-three states—including Colorado—still allow transgender females to share locker rooms with biological females and to utilize their biologically male advantages in competition with them.
Proponents of allowing transgender girls and women who compete with biological females argue that those trans athletes deserve an equal chance to participate. They ignore the obvious advantages of being biologically male.
Colorado voters—as liberal as they are—could settle the matter in favor of biological females later this year.
They’ll individually take positions in November on Initiative 109, which if passed, will add the state to the 27 already covered by last week’s Supreme Court ruling.
A “Yes” vote would nullify a Colorado High School Activities Association (CHSAA) policy adopted in 2019 titled, “Transgender Inclusion Bylaw & Policy”. It reads, in relevant part:
“(CHSAA) recognizes the right of transgender student-athlete to participate in interscholastic activities free from unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation. In order to insure (sic) appropriate gender assignment for purposes of athletic eligibility, a transgender student-athlete’s home school will perform a confidential evaluation to determine the gender assignment for the prospective student-athlete . . . “
Colorado Public Education Watch, which monitors and reports on K-12 and higher education policies, legislation and political movements within the state, has produced a timeline of challenges to CHSAA’s transgender athlete policy, which effectively is the state’s position.
To date it traces a succession of failed attempts to protect female athletes:
The first effort came in March 2020 when HB 20-1273, termed the “Equality and Fairness in Youth Sport Act” is introduced in the Colorado Legislature. This attempt to override CHSAA’s policy fails to attract enough votes to pass.
In early 2023 House Bill 23-1098, called the “Women’s Rights in Athletics” is proposed. The House Committee on State, Civic, Military and Veterans Affairs indefinitely postpones consideration.
Early is 2024, Protect Kids Colorado tries to advance several anti-LGBTQ+ and restrictions-based initiatives. But the Colorado Title Board rejects them for various technicalities.
Fast forward to May 2025, and El Paso County School District 49 approves a policy named “Preserving Fairness and Safety in Sports” that bans transgender middle and high school students from girls’ sports teams.
At the same time District 49 files a lawsuit in federal district court arguing that CHSA’s transgender inclusion policy forces the district to choose between violating state non-discrimination law or violating federal Title IX guidelines. Seven other school districts and charter networks quickly join as co-plaintiffs.
Also in 2025, Initiative 109 is approved for signature-gathering, which if successful will put the matter of transgender athletes competing in girls sport to a vote. (Earlier this year, the citizen-driven solicitation—which collected almost 169,000 signatures—passes muster.)
Imitative 109 restricts participation in K-12 and collegiate school sports to a student’s biological sex and requires schools and athletic associations to designate teams and sports as girls, boys or co-ed.
In addition, Initiative 109 establishes an exception that allows a female student to participate on a male team if there is no female team available. It also prohibits a government entity or athletic association from investigating a school over maintaining separate sports for females.
In late March this year, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups launched a multimillion-dollar voter education campaign in opposition.
Election Day is November 3.
________________
Denny Dressman writes a weekly sports column for The Villager. You can write to Denny at dennydressman@comcast.net.