SCOTUS Justice Sam Alito DESTROYS Woke Attorney’s Argument for Transgender Men Competing in Women’s Sports

Today, the Supreme Court heard arguments on a key case regarding the issue of so-called “transgender” men competing in women’s sports.

Specifically, the case has to do with whether or not laws in Idaho and West Virginia banning all biological males from competing in women’s and girl’s sports violate the Constitution.

Two biological males from these states are suing after being told they couldn’t compete against women.

NBC News provided more background:

The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, heard more than three hours of oral arguments in separate cases involving two transgender students, Becky Pepper-Jackson and Lindsay Hecox, who challenged state bans in West Virginia and Idaho, respectively.

Both won lower court injunctions that allowed them to continue to compete in sports.

During arguments, questions asked by justices indicated a majority appeared reluctant to find that the laws violate either the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which requires that the law apply equally to everyone, or Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in education.

So far, it looks like the Supreme Court is leaning towards siding with the states (and truth and common sense!)

Today was a disaster for the attorneys trying to argue in defense of the “transgender” agenda.

One of the lawyers got absolutely crushed by Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito when he posed a hypothetical argument about a biological male student trying to compete against girls.

You have to see this:

🚨 HOLY SMOKES. SCOTUS Justice Sam Alito just EVISCERATED the attorney's argument for a transgender male trying to compete in girl's sports

Every word. Masterful.

ALITO: Let's say a school has a boy and girl track team. A male student with no puberty blockers or female… pic.twitter.com/Doejb48Jg4

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 13, 2026

HOLY SMOKES. SCOTUS Justice Sam Alito just EVISCERATED the attorney’s argument for a transgender male trying to compete in girl’s sports

Every word. Masterful.

ADVERTISEMENT

ALITO: Let’s say a school has a boy and girl track team. A male student with no puberty blockers or female hormones, or surgeries, says, ‘I AM A WOMAN. That’s who I am.’ Can the school say, ‘No, you can’t participate?’

ATTORNEY: Yes…

ALITO: Is that person not a WOMAN in your understanding?! They SAY they’re a woman. Are they not a woman, then?

ATTORNEY: Well, I’d respect their pronouns…

ALITO: You seem to be saying the school can discriminate on the basis of transgender status! If this person is a “transgender woman” and is barred from the girls’ team, that person is being subjected to differential treatment based on transgender status, right?

Sam Alito is awesome

At another point, Justice Alito got the lawyer to admit that they do not even have a definition for what “a man or a woman” is.

Basically, this happened:

“Your honor, we feel very strongly about a concept we absolutely cannot explain.” Incredible stuff.

— Luca Taner (@LucaTaner) January 13, 2026

Watch for yourself:

🚨 HOLY SMOKES. SCOTUS Justice Sam Alito asks ACLU lawyer "what is a man and a woman?" and they DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION.

Alito's response is perfect.

ALITO: What does it mean to be a man or woman?

ACLU: We do not have a definition for the Court.

ALITO: How can a court… pic.twitter.com/E5C9zX35NN

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 13, 2026

HOLY SMOKES. SCOTUS Justice Sam Alito asks ACLU lawyer “what is a man and a woman?” and they DON’T HAVE A DEFINITION.

Alito’s response is perfect.

ALITO: What does it mean to be a man or woman?

ACLU: We do not have a definition for the Court.

ALITO: How can a court determine whether there’s discrimination on the basis of s*x, without KNOWING what s*x means?!

Omg, you can’t make this crap up. Seriously.

Check and mate!

Too bad every Supreme Court Justice isn’t like Alito.

Amy Coney Barrett is getting ripped online for referring to boys as “trans girls” during the arguments:

🚨SCOTUS Justice Amy Coney Barrett, so called “conservative” just referred to men as “trans girls”

Men are MEN, period.

Someone needs to tell her… Biology isn’t negotiable!pic.twitter.com/WRv1Nb0DQC

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) January 13, 2026

Newsflash to Barrett: “trans girls” are not girls!

Call them what they are — men!

Exactly this:

There’s no such thing as a “trans girl.” Ceding language is ceding truth, and there can be no justice without truth. https://t.co/Q4JDwricuu

— Allie Beth Stuckey (@conservmillen) January 13, 2026

Funnily enough, unlike the woke lawyer defending the “transgender” male students, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson did try to give a definition for what a woman is.

The problem is that she failed miserably at doing so.

Listen to this:

Listen to how ridiculous Ketanji Brown Jackson sounds when she tries to discuss what a woman is. She embarrasses herself in every oral argument. pic.twitter.com/2K0jmVHCBl

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) January 13, 2026

Embarrassing and delusional.

How can you be this dumb and a Supreme Court Justice?

This is one of the most powerful people in the world, DEI has set us back decades

— Gilgamesh (@SnorkelCapital) January 13, 2026

This will be the first time the Supreme Court has ruled on the legality of transgender men in women’s sports.

Beyond West Virginia and Idaho, it could have far-reaching implications nationwide.

The New York Times has more:

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Tuesday seemed inclined to uphold a pair of state laws barring the participation of transgender athletes from girls’ and women’s sports teams.

The outcome of the cases from West Virginia and Idaho has implications for the 25 other states with similar laws, and for athletes who compete in school and collegiate sports around the country.

Becky Pepper-Jackson, a high school sophomore from West Virginia, and Lindsay Hecox, a college senior in Idaho, challenged the laws, which require that participation on sports teams for girls be based on “biological sex,” defined as a person’s sex assigned at birth.

During more than three hours of lively discussion, the justices grappled with concerns about fairness, scientific uncertainty and discrimination and seemed divided along ideological lines.

The three liberal justices, appearing to recognize the likely outcome, suggested through their questions that even if the laws are constitutional in most cases, perhaps the two transgender athletes at the heart of Tuesday’s arguments should be able to pursue their individual challenges.

Allowing their cases to be reviewed again by a lower court, the justices suggested, would give the athletes a chance to try to show that they themselves do not possess unfair competitive advantages even if some transgender girls do.

The conservative justices emphasized that federal law has long allowed separate sports teams for boys and girls to ensure fair competition and raised concerns about undermining the goals of Title IX, the civil rights statute that has fueled participation in women’s sports.

The Trump administration has targeted the participation of transgender athletes in sports and the rights of transgender people more broadly. President Trump in February directed agencies to withdraw federal funding from schools that allow transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports. The N.C.A.A. then announced it would bar transgender women from competing.

Until now, the Supreme Court has not formally addressed the legal issues surrounding transgender athletes. But in June, the court upheld a Tennessee law banning some medical treatments for transgender adolescents, dividing along ideological lines in its opinion. The decision was a major setback for transgender rights, after the court ruled in 2020 that a federal civil rights law protected gay and transgender employees from workplace discrimination.

This shouldn’t even be negotiable.

Ban men in women’s sports and protect women!

What are your feelings?