SIMS: Biology, Not Bigotry – Why Tomorrow’s Supreme Court Showdown, and NH’s Next Move, Will Decide the Future of Women’s Sports

As SCOTUS weighs West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Hecox v. Little, New Hampshire’s governor still refuses to sign clear protections for women’s sports and single-sex spaces, even as Granite State women, parents, and coaches mobilize to defend biological reality.

Tomorrow’s Supreme Court hearings are about more than one athlete, one state, or one season. They will help determine whether women and girls across America keep the sports and spaces that Title IX promised them—or whether those protections are hollowed out in the name of ideology.

What SCOTUS Is Hearing Tomorrow
On January 13, the Court will hear West Virginia v. B.P.J., alongside the related Idaho case Hecox v. Little, both challenging state laws that reserve girls’ and women’s sports for females. These statutes prevent biological males from competing in female categories in school and college athletics, and they are among the first “Save Women’s Sports” laws to reach the high court. The core question: may states recognize that allowing males into women’s sports diminishes women’s athletic opportunities and destroys fair competition, consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.
​

West Virginia’s 2021 Save Women’s Sports Act bars males from competing on girls’ teams, a law the ACLU challenged on behalf of a male athlete who identifies as female. Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) intervened for collegiate soccer player Lainey Armistead. A district court upheld the law in January 2023, but in April 2024 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit reversed, ruling that the law violated Title IX and blocking West Virginia from enforcing it. During that injunction period, one male athlete displaced girls over 700 times in competition and was granted access to the girls’ locker room—where a female athlete reported sexual harassment and teammates felt so uncomfortable that one wore her practice uniform all day rather than change.
​

Those facts are not outliers. Cases like North Carolina volleyball player Payton McNabb—partially paralyzed after a male opponent’s spike—illustrate the concrete safety risks when male strength is introduced into girls’ competitions. Tomorrow’s arguments will determine whether states can protect women from precisely these harms.
​

The Law, the Science, and What’s at Stake
Supporters of West Virginia’s law—including ADF and numerous amici—argue that Title IX’s text and history support sex-based teams designed to generate equal opportunity for women, not to allow biological males to displace them. They point out that Title IX’s success rests on acknowledging that males, on average, run faster, jump higher, hit harder, and grow bigger than females, especially after puberty. Peer-reviewed research summarized in the amicus brief filed by the Independent Council on Women’s Sports (ICONS) shows that post‑puberty male athletic performance exceeds female performance by roughly 10–50 percent, depending on the event. Those gaps appear in world records, Olympic results, and national-level data and are rooted in skeletal size, bone density, muscle mass, lung capacity, and lifelong androgen exposure—not in “identity.”
​
​Crucially, the ICONS brief—filed in a related Supreme Court case about “gender‑affirming” interventions but directly relevant to the sports debate—explains that these male advantages persist even after testosterone suppression. Reviewing eleven peer‑reviewed studies on males who identify as transgender and have undergone at least a year of hormone suppression, the authors found that muscle mass and strength remained far higher than in female reference groups—even after 36 months. As the brief bluntly warns, constitutionalizing gender identity—by treating “sex” and “gender identity” as interchangeable for Equal Protection and Title IX—would “sound the death knell of women’s sport and Title IX” by erasing the legal recognition of biological differences that justify sex-based protections.
​
The brief also reminds the Court of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s words in United States v. Virginia (the VMI case): “Physical differences between men and women…are enduring…the two sexes are not fungible,” and those “inherent differences…remain cause for celebration.” That is not a call to erase sex; it is a call to build fair structures around it. Women’s sports and women’s spaces are exactly those structures.
​
On the other side, B.P.J. and allied organizations argue that excluding males who identify as female violates Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, citing the Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that discrimination against transgender employees is discrimination “because of sex” under Title VII. Their theory is that if “sex” in employment law includes gender identity, then “sex” in education and athletics must be read the same way, even if that means girls lose championships, roster spots, and safe spaces.
​
That is why tomorrow’s arguments matter so much: a ruling for West Virginia would clarify that Bostock—an employment case—does not govern sports. It would affirm that Title IX permits sex distinctions, particularly in athletics and privacy-related spaces, to protect women’s opportunities, safety, and dignity. A ruling against West Virginia would accelerate what the ICONS brief calls a “legal revolution” that untethers equal protection from biology and opens the female category to male bodies—a revolution already harming girls in swimming, volleyball, cycling, and more.
​
​A New Hampshire Leader Watching from the Front Lines
For women in New Hampshire, this is not an abstract legal fight. It is personal—and it is political.

As a woman, athlete, and gymnastics coach who has worked for years with girls and women in locker rooms, gyms, and competition halls, the stakes are painfully clear: if the law refuses to recognize sex, my athletes lose fair competition, safety, and privacy in their own schools and training facilities. As a Northern New Hampshire Chapter Leader in the Independent Women’s Network (IWN), and a signatory to the ICONS amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of 135 female athletes, coaches, officials, and parents, I have joined women across the country in telling the justices that women’s sports and spaces cannot survive if males are treated as female for all legal purposes.
​
​The ICONS brief I signed is not theoretical. It is a compilation of lived experience: Olympic champions like Martina Navratilova, Donna de Varona, and other elite women explain how female-only categories gave them a path to excellence and leadership. NCAA swimmers describe how they were forced to undress in front of a naked male athlete in the women’s locker room at the 2022 NCAA women’s championships, without consent, and then race against him for titles, records, and All‑American honors they had trained their whole lives to earn. A current NCAA volleyball player, Brooke Slusser, recounts competing on a women’s team that includes a male—facing harder hits, higher injury risk, and opponents forfeiting rather than risking their players’ safety. Professional athletes like Lauren Miller (golf) and Hannah Arensman (cycling) detail losing podium spots and career opportunities to males invading the women’s category, and why some women ultimately walked away from the sports they loved.
​
As a leader in the #WalkAway Campaign in New Hampshire and now a chapter leader for the Independent Women’s Network, I have heard versions of the same story over and over from women in our state: girls told to “be kind” when they are uncomfortable changing in front of males, female athletes losing placements, and mothers asking why school officials and athletic associations won’t simply say the word “woman” and mean “adult human female.”
​
New Hampshire’s Laws—and What Still Hasn’t Happened
New Hampshire is at an inflection point. On paper, some progress has been made. In 2024, Governor Chris Sununu signed HB 1205, requiring student‑athletes to play on teams that correspond to the biological sex listed on their birth certificates. The stated aim was to protect the integrity of girls’ sports and reduce the risk of injuries from male competition. Yet those protections have been contested aggressively by LGBTQ organizations and their allies, often without confronting the underlying performance data or injury evidence, leaving girls and women to defend themselves in competition and in shared spaces like locker rooms and bathrooms.
​
At the same time, the Independent Women’s “Stand with Women” sex-definition model—designed to define “woman,” “female,” “man,” and “male” in law to protect single-sex spaces and opportunities—has now been adopted in 18 states, covering over 49 million women and girls. That model underpins New Hampshire’s Senate Bill 268, which permits classification based on biological sex in specific areas like bathrooms, locker rooms, sports, shelters, prisons, and similar spaces, by clearly defining sex in state law.
​
When SB 268 came before the legislature, I wrote to the New Hampshire House as an athlete and coach urging them to support it. I emphasized that our nearly 700,000 girls and women deserve a legal code that recognizes biological reality and protects female‑only opportunities and private spaces from those who would manipulate language to push unpopular policies. Independent Women successfully pressed lawmakers to remove “gender identity” from the bill, which would have gutted its purpose, and the amended version passed the House—an important step inspired directly by the national Stand with Women effort.
​
Yet one critical fact remains: as of today, New Hampshire’s governor has not signed a comprehensive bill that clearly protects women’s single‑sex spaces and sports in state law for 2026 and beyond. In 2025, Governor Kelly Ayotte vetoed HB 148, which would have ensured women‑only bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports. That veto left women unprotected in precisely the spaces where the imbalance of power—physical, institutional, and cultural—is most visible.
​
What Granite Staters Believe
The political class may be confused, but New Hampshire voters are not.

In May 2024, NHJournal reported a poll conducted by Praecones Analytica of 606 registered New Hampshire voters, with a margin of error of ±4.70%, asking a simple question: “Should New Hampshire allow school districts to have separate locker rooms and restrooms for biological females and biological males?” Seventy‑four percent said yes—just 10% said no, and 16% had no opinion.
​
The support crosses every major fault line:

59.6% of Democrats support separate facilities for biological males and females; only 18.5% oppose.

89.9% of Republicans support separate facilities; only 1.5% oppose.

72.4% of undeclared/independent voters support separate facilities, with only 10.2% opposed.

72.4% of women and 75.5% of men support separate facilities along biological lines.
​
In other words, a broad bipartisan and cross‑gender majority in New Hampshire supports exactly what West Virginia is fighting for at the Supreme Court and what IWN Southern NH is advocating for at our State House: clear, sex-based protections for women’s spaces and sports.

IWN Southern NH: Organizing for 2026
The Independent Women’s Network Southern New Hampshire Chapter is a grassroots community of women dedicated to defending women’s rights, strengthening families, and preserving parental authority throughout the Granite State. Our mission is to safeguard women-only spaces—bathrooms, locker rooms, shelters, prisons, and sports; to support legislation that defines and protects biological women and girls; to defend parental rights and children’s safety; and to build community through education and civic engagement. We welcome women and allies committed to honest debate, freedom, fairness, and policies that put women and children first.
​
As we move into the 2026 legislative session and the New Hampshire primary season, our chapter is mobilizing members to push for real, durable protections. After Governor Ayotte’s veto of HB 148 in 2025, our priority is clear: pass and secure bills that protect biological women in sports and single‑sex spaces—and ensure they are signed into law. We are calling on members to write letters to bill sponsors and co‑sponsors, send postcards to committee members and the governor, submit letters to the editor, and show up in Concord to testify.
​
My own testimony and advocacy build on the scientific evidence summarized in the ICONS brief and in my public letters: male‑female performance differences exist from the earliest stages of development, cannot be neutralized by hormones, and make many mixed‑sex competitions inherently unsafe. The National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) recently adopted a straightforward policy: the male category is open to everyone; the female category is restricted to those born female who are not on testosterone—a model that preserves both inclusion and fairness and could easily guide New Hampshire and other states.
​
​We know what happens when policymakers ignore reality: female athletes lose medals, scholarships, and joy; women are told to stay quiet and smile in the face of obvious unfairness; coaches fear for their jobs if they speak up; and participation in women’s sports begins to drop, threatening a return to pre‑Title IX levels of opportunity. That is not progress. It is regression dressed up as inclusion.
​
​What Tomorrow—and 2026—Should Deliver
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court has the chance to stop that regression. A ruling for West Virginia would confirm that Title IX allows sex-based distinctions in sports to protect women’s opportunities and safety; that Bostock does not force courts to pretend males are female for all purposes; and that states retain the right to adopt common‑sense rules that reflect biological reality rather than ideology. It would send a clear message that women’s sports and women’s spaces are not expendable bargaining chips in cultural battles.
​
​But even the best Supreme Court ruling will not rewrite New Hampshire’s statutes. That work is ours.

In a state where 74% of voters believe schools should be allowed to maintain separate bathrooms and locker rooms for biological boys and girls, there is no excuse for failing to enact clear, sex-based protections. Governor Ayotte’s veto of HB 148 in 2025 left women and girls vulnerable; in 2026, she should have the opportunity—and the pressure from constituents—to sign a bill that corrects that mistake and joins SB 268’s sex definitions with robust enforcement for sports and spaces.
​
As an IWN Southern NH leader, a coach, and a signatory to the ICONS Supreme Court brief, my message is simple: biology is not bigotry. It is the foundation of fairness, safety, and opportunity for women and girls. Tomorrow, the justices will decide whether West Virginia may act on that truth. Next, New Hampshire must decide whether it will.

References & Sources:
Alliance Defending Freedom, B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education case page and timeline (Save Women’s Sports Act litigation). https://adflegal.org/case/bpj-v-west-virginia-state-board-education
​
Independent Council on Women’s Sports (ICONS) & 135 female athletes, coaches, officials, and parents, Amicus Brief in United States v. Skrmetti, No. 23‑477 (Oct. 15, 2024). PDF provided by user.
​
Supreme Court docket summaries for West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Hecox v. Little (grants of certiorari, questions presented, linkage to state “Save Women’s Sports” laws and interaction with Bostock). See SCOTUSblog case pages:

West Virginia v. B.P.J., No. 24‑43: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/west-virginia-v-b-p-j/

Hecox v. Little, No. 24‑38: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/hecox-v-little/
​
Independent Women’s Network / Independent Women’s Law Center on the Stand with Women model and state adoption (18 states). Overview: https://www.iwv.org/stand-with-women/ and https://www.iwv.org/stand-with-women-map/
​
New Hampshire legislation and policy:

HB 1205 (2024) – Fairness in Women’s Sports: text and status via NH General Court: https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billinfo.aspx?id=xxxx (insert correct ID).

HB 148 (vetoed 2025 bill on women‑only bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports): https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billinfo.aspx?id=yyyy.

SB 268 (2026 bill defining sex and permitting sex-based classification in limited circumstances): https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billinfo.aspx?id=zzzz.
​
Praecones Analytica poll for NHJournal (May 2024) on separate bathrooms and locker rooms by biological sex (606 NH registered voters; ±4.70% MoE). Coverage at NHJournal: https://nhjournal.com/poll-nh-voters-back-biological-sex-separate-bathrooms-locker-rooms/
​
Independent Women’s Network Southern New Hampshire Chapter information and membership:

Chapter page: https://iwnetwork.com/chapter/southern-nh-chapter/

National site: https://iwnetwork.com
​