Arizona's rule prohibiting transgender females from participating in girls' school sports teams was temporarily suspended by a federal court on Thursday, July 20.
The Save Women's Sports Act, approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature last year, is being challenged in court. A judge in Tucson has issued a preliminary injunction to let the case proceed.
The complaint claims the statute violates Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded schools, and the equal protection provision of the US Constitution.
Tom Horne, the state superintendent and a defendant in the case, has already announced his intention to appeal. "This will ultimately be decided by the United States Supreme Court, and they will rule in our favor," he stated.
Debate Over the 'Save Women's Sports Act'
Some school districts and states, like Arizona, have established legislation that excludes children based on their biological sex rather than their gender identification from participation in school sports.
According to NBC News, a 15-year-old volleyball player and an 11-year-old who would want to participate in women's soccer, basketball, and cross country are among the plaintiffs from Arizona. Both Jane Doe and Megan Roe have been used in legal documents.
The court's ruling was greeted with approval by the parents of both youngsters.
In a statement released by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is assisting Jane Doe's parents, they stated, "We are relieved that the judge saw past the misconceptions and harmful rhetoric used to demonize transgender girls. Our daughter is looking forward to making new friends and playing the sports that she loves."
According to Arizona authorities, the legislation is acceptable to the federal government since it promotes equality.
Horne told the AP News in April, when the lawsuit was filed, that the purpose of Title IX was to ensure that women and men had equal access to sports programs. In sports dominated by women, he said that having a biological guy participate might be a major disadvantage.
"There have been lots of news stories about girls who worked hard to excel at their sports, found they could not when they had to compete against biological boys and were devastated by that," he added.
Protecting Young Trans Athletes
Judge Jennifer G. Zipps, who issued the preliminary injunction, said that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that minors using puberty blockers for gender dysphoria would provide an unfair athletic advantage to the teams or pose an undue danger to the other players.
Instead, the court believes that the youngsters would suffer significant and irreparable mental, physical, and emotional injury if the law applied to them.
"There is a consensus among medical organizations that gender identity is innate and cannot be changed through psychological or medical treatments ... Plaintiffs' mental health is dependent on living as girls in all aspects of their lives," the ruling said.
Supporters of LGBTQ rights believe that laws like the one enacted in Arizona and hundreds more around the US are anti-transgender attacks disguised as safeguards for children. They claim that the ban only utilizes transgender individuals as political pawns to energize Republican supporters in an election year.
