Abstract

The inclusion of transgender females in women’s competitions has evoked political and judicial discussions in many countries as the citizens in general weren’t prepared to witness a biological male who has scientifically restructured himself as a female in competitions designed for cisgender women. Consequently, a string of laws was passed in the US attempting to ban transwomen from women’s sports. The same was challenged under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment which promotes equality to all genders but permits discrimination if the discrimination in question pursues an important governmental interest. Idaho’s Fairness in Women Sports Act which is one of the first legislations to categorically ban transwomen athletes from participating in female sports attempts to justify the ban based on the rationale that non-restrictive participation to women’s sports competitions is a violation of women’s right to equality as it permits transwomen to take advantage of their physiology and reduce the competition success rate of ciswomen, which would not have been the case if the latter is allowed to compete in their own category. The statute is currently facing an injunction after being challenged for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. The US supreme court is yet to deliberate and make the landmark decision of whether the said ban is unconstitutional, thus unenforceable. This article examines the rationale used for justifying the ban imposed under the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act and argues that if the same is declared as constitutionally valid, there would be far reaching consequences which goes beyond restricting transwomen from women’s sports as the same rationale, if argued adequately will potentially be able to place constitutionally valid restrictions on transwomen from competing in women’s competitions in general including beauty pageants.

Keywords