Two states just told transgender athletes they can no longer play on girls’ and women’s school teams, reigniting a fight that has already reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
Quick Take
- Nebraska’s Stand With Women Act and a new Arizona ballot measure both require school sports to be split by biological sex.
- Supporters point to studies showing transgender women may keep some speed and strength edges even after hormone therapy.
- Opponents cite other research showing those differences often shrink or vanish over time, and say bans cause real harm.
- The Supreme Court recently ruled states can legally keep school sports separated by sex, giving these laws fresh legal cover.
Nebraska Writes Sex-Based Rules Into Law
Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen signed Legislative Bill 89, known as the Stand With Women Act, on June 4, 2025. It took effect September 3, 2025. The law tells schools, colleges, and universities to sort sports teams by biological sex, with exceptions for coed sports and sports with no female version. Lawmakers also passed Legislative Bill 605, ordering every school board to write its own policy on transgender students in extracurricular activities.
Arizona voters approved their own ballot measure this month barring transgender girls and women from girls’ and women’s school sports. That follows a 2022 state law that a federal appeals court blocked in 2024. Reporting describes the vote as a statewide referendum on transgender rights, with backers calling it a fairness fix and critics calling it discrimination. Full legal text and enforcement details for Arizona’s measure remain limited in public records so far.
What Hormone Therapy Does and Doesn’t Change
A review covered by CNN found transgender women start with real physical edges: 31% more push-ups, 15% more sit-ups, and 21% faster running than cisgender women. After one year of hormone therapy, the running edge shrank to 9% but didn’t disappear. A separate Sports Medicine review says transgender women can keep muscle mass and strength even after testosterone drops, meaning suppression may not erase every advantage.
Other research points the opposite way. Maryland legislative testimony found differences largely disappear after two to four years of hormone therapy, with only a small strength edge sometimes lingering. A 2026 meta-analysis of nearly 3,000 hormone-treated transgender women, reported by El País, found no measurable gap in strength or aerobic fitness compared with cisgender women. Scientists still say no large study has tracked performance sport by sport.
The NCAA’s Own Rules Cut Both Ways
The NCAA’s transgender-athlete handbook acknowledges worries that transgender women could gain an edge or limit chances for other female athletes. But the same handbook says strength and endurance advantages may fade after roughly one year of hormone suppression. That gap between flagged concern and documented proof leaves room for both sides to claim the evidence backs their position.
A Supreme Court Ruling Changes the Legal Map
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this year in West Virginia v. B.P.J. that neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause stops states from keeping school sports separated by sex. That decision gives Nebraska and Arizona firmer legal ground. Still, an amicus brief filed in the same case argued categorical bans cause severe, lasting harm to transgender athletes, their families, and their teammates.
Neither state’s public record names a specific girl or woman who lost a roster spot, medal, or scholarship because a transgender athlete competed against her. The evidence driving these laws comes from lab tests and fitness studies, not documented game-day outcomes in Nebraska or Arizona classrooms and gyms. That gap matters to anyone trying to judge whether the policy fits the problem it claims to solve.
A Pattern of Shifting Rules, Not a Settled Question
This fight fits a longer pattern. The International Olympic Committee has rewritten its transgender-athlete rules three times since 2004, moving from surgery requirements to testosterone limits to a 2021 framework built around fairness and human rights. A review of fifteen major British sports groups found no shared standard either. For families and athletes caught in the middle, the rules keep changing while the science stays unsettled, leaving ordinary people to sort through policy swings made in statehouses and courtrooms far from the field.
