Who could have foreseen that in 2026, America’s highest court would need to deliberate on such basic principles as fairness, integrity, and undeniable biological reality?

On January 13, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two landmark cases — Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. — that could determine the future of women’s and girls’ sports nationwide. At stake is a fundamental question: Should biological males be allowed to compete in women’s and girls’ athletic categories?

To date, 27 states have passed laws safeguarding female athletes by requiring sports participation based on biological sex, protecting them from competing against biological males who identify as transgender. These protections now face direct challenges in the consolidated cases before the Supreme Court, where advocates seek to overturn them and permit biological males in girls’ sports. The court’s ruling could either preserve these safeguards in the 27 states or dismantle them nationwide, eroding opportunities, fairness, and safety for women and girls everywhere.

Outside the Supreme Court on the crisp, sunlit January morning, a diverse coalition gathered to bear witness to the moment’s gravity. While the side pushing for the male inclusion in female sports waved flags with satanic symbolism and held signs that read “Fix your heart or DIE,” the side wanting to promote fairness and safety tackled the topic with grace and passion. They came from all walks of life — legislators, medical experts, athletes, parents, Christians, conservatives, and even Democrats — united in defense of women and girls’ sports.

Numerous prominent names were in attendance and gave speeches, including former NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines, Education Secretary Linda McMahon, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), multiple members of Congress, and several young women who have been directly affected by men intruding into women’s sports. As many told The Washington Stand, it is staggering that this debate is necessary at all. Yet those committed to truth and fairness refused to remain silent.

Senator Steve Daines (R-Mont.) spoke powerfully: “This is about standing up for what is true. … This is about common sense.” As a father, grandfather, and legislator, he insisted that fairness and safety must prevail — from the playing field to the locker room. “[F]or biological men then to suggest they can enter women’s sports is wrong,” he emphasized. “It’s disturbing that we’ve come to this point in our country where this is even an issue to be debated before the Supreme Court. But sadly, it is, [and] it’s very important that we prevail here on behalf of men and women across this country.”

Echoing this, both state Senators Judy Ward (R-Pa.) and Kristin Phillips-Hill (R-Pa.) shared a clear message with TWS: “Reality matters. Biology matters.” As Ward expressed, “I don’t like something that’s not fair. And this is not fair — that men are on women’s sports teams.” She described the heartbreak for female athletes forced to share intimate spaces like bathrooms and locker rooms with biological males. “It’s traumatic and it’s just so wrong. … [T]he rights of the women are being violated.”

Phillips-Hill added, “We’re standing here with young athletes, with advocates, with their parents, with legislators, and with people from all across the country to say, ‘We need fairness.’” If the court rules favorably, states would retain authority to ensure female athletes compete only against biological females — meaning the work doesn’t end with a SCOTUS ruling but with more legislation to seal these protections into law. Yet even in potential defeat, Ward vowed, “we just continue the fight.”

Medical professionals also voiced strong concerns. Dr. Jared Ross of Do No Harm and Dr. Steve Ward of Living Waters Internal Medicine & Wellness distinguished between true compassion and misguided affirmation. Dr. Ward warned that “to affirm someone along a path of destruction, so to speak, is a violation of bioethical principles.” There is “research that shows that gender affirming care is harmful over the long term,” he added. Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones “do permanently sterilize youth, and they do other bodily harms. And they don’t work.” True care, he argued, sometimes requires saying no: “to hold that line actually is compassion.”

Dr. Ross urged empathy for those struggling: “We’re sorry you’re struggling, but you’re a boy, and that’s the truth. You were born a boy, and you will always be a boy.” And as Dr. Ward noted, the general public understands the “biological distinction.” It’s the “social pressure,” the “political momentum” that influences young people. But with time, he contended, “this phenomenon will slowly start to unravel itself under the weight of its own inherent inconsistencies.”

Lily Williams, a former high school track student-athlete, shared her story with TWS. “I was naive to think that I wouldn’t ever be someone [who] was affected by the transgender movement,” she said. Yet one day, without warning, a biological male entered her girls’ locker room. When Williams raised concerns, she was “met with the narrative” that she should prioritize the comfort of the male over her own.

“None of this was coming from a place of hate,” she asserted. “I think we all just wanted answers.” But “the answer is not to subject women to this. The answer is not to say that women don’t deserve backup. Despite how a man feels about his body, the biological differences we were created with do not change,” and “the answer is not to strip women of their right to equal opportunity, fairness, privacy, and security.”

Also speaking to TWS, Jonathan Alexandre, legislative counsel with the Maryland Family Institute, summarized the heart of the pro-women and girls’ sports movement. “The greater part of this country understands the commonsense issue that’s at play. They understand that for certain settings, whether it’s in privacy in locker rooms and bathrooms, and even especially on the sports field, girls should be treated and respected and given spaces that are unique to themselves. And so, the greater weight of the evidence obviously is with us. Common sense is with us.” And “regardless of how the court rules, it’s not going to change biological design. It’s not going to change reality.”

And yet, Alexandre took a moment to address those in the opposition. “If we win every political battle,” he said, “if we win every court decision, but we lose souls along the way, then are we really being a true Christian witness? … I just want to be able to tell them that God loves them. He’s created them perfectly the way they are, and that all of creation, all of humanity, struggles in different ways. But there’s healing. There’s hope. There’s restoration, even for those caught in the LGBT lifestyle. At the same time, we’re going to do our best to defend innocence, to rescue those that are otherwise being led to the slaughter, and not cosign young children to a lifestyle of buying into a lie.”

“That’s what our fight is for,” he concluded — protecting the vulnerable and fighting to “redeem the soul of this nation and the individual souls that may be misguided on this issue.”

On this pivotal day, voices from across the spectrum converged on one truth: Allowing biological males into women’s sports, bathrooms, and locker rooms defeats the purpose of sex-separated categories and undermines Title IX’s promise of equal opportunity for women. A decision is expected by summer 2026, but its consequences will echo for generations — either restoring fairness and biological truth, or continuing to erode them. The fight for women’s sports, it would seem, remains far from over.