Leftist Spin From ACLU and Liberal Supreme Court Justices in "Trans" Sports Arguments, with Waggoner

What this episode is about

The discussion focuses on the intersection of transgender rights in sports and the implications of legal classifications by states, highlighting allegations of misconduct in a high school sports context and the resultant concerns over fairness and safety for female athletes. Central to the argument is the assertion that biological differences between males and females may warrant specific legislative responses, even within established frameworks like Title IX.

Key takeaways

• In sports, biology matters—advantage isn’t just about testosterone; it’s in bone density and muscle mass.
• Claims of equality clash with reality; how do we balance fairness when some gain from male advantages?
• Lower testosterone doesn’t erase male puberty benefits; elite athleticism remains a hard truth no amount of blockers can change.
• The legal quagmire of 'individual exceptions' for transgender athletes raises more questions than it answers—who's defining fairness, anyway?
• When advocating for inclusivity, don’t forget: fairness for women means recognizing the real advantages at play.

Who speaks in this episode?

• Megyn Kelly (Guest) · 9 min speaking
• Kristen Waggoner (Guest) · 6 min speaking

What is discussed, and when

1. 0:00 – 3:00: sports, biological sex, Kristen, Title IX
2. 3:00 – 6:00: Will (Leah Thomas), ACLU, Kathleen Partnet
3. 6:00 – 9:00: Bostock, gender identity, Bast, Planet Fitness
4. 9:00 – 12:00: Title IX, Bostock, gender identity
5. 12:00 – 15:00: Kristen, Title IX, Michael McKenna III (MK), Ari Maddie

Notable quotes from "Leftist Spin From ACLU and Liberal Supreme Court Justices in "Trans" Sports Arguments, with Waggoner"

• Anymore. Would you They're in the same high school. They would be on the same team. She has been excluded from her own locker room and her own athletic team.

  about Adala · at 0:34

• Differentiate based on sex between boys and girls, but that's been accepted to do it in this fashion and especially based on sports. That's been made perfectly clear is totally…

  about sports · at 1:51

• To that and they don't want to get rid of those differences. They just want boys who identify as girls to be able to come into the girls category. And we need to ensure that…

  about gender identity · at 4:00

• Like that's a postpubescent male who tried to pawn himself off as female and puberty blockers or whatever testosterone, pills to lower it or not. You can see with your.

  about Will (Leah Thomas) · at 5:46

• Yes. Exactly. Right. And so unfortunately for us though, we're stuck with Bast which was a Supreme Court case deciding that under Title 7, which governs employment, gender identity is a protected class and you cannot refuse to.

  about Bostock · at 6:59

• And you and I both know that the vast majority of these maleto-female alleged trans people are autogophiles who are actually not gender confused. They're getting off in a…

  about autogophiles · at 7:46

• And states have the right to make distinctions on the basis of our biological differences. So, we're going to keep going and I think eventually we're going to win. And if we don't,.

  about biological sex · at 11:26

• They're strong and they're courageous and I believe they've unleashed warriors by taking this battle on. MK and Maddie, they're passionate about this issue. They receive…

  about Michael McKenna III (MK) · at 13:09

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

• Kristen — Person · Main guest / legal advocate · 2 mentions · first at 2:34
  Kristen is the on-air legal advocate describing Supreme Court/appeals litigation over sex-based sports categories and Title IX, and discussing plaintiffs and state AG partners.
  Don't have male advantage and how are we going to figure that out like as a group? And like the impossibility of it, Kristen, became pretty clear to me like and then we got to…
• Michael McKenna III (MK) — Person · Host (implied) / show brand · 1 mention · first at 14:32
  MK appears as the add-read keyword ('text MK') and is addressed by Kristen when describing plaintiffs; this indicates MK is the host or show identity.
• Will (Leah Thomas) — Person · Referenced example in sports debate · 2 mentions · first at 5:36
  Leah Thomas is used as a high-profile example to argue that post-pubertal males retain athletic advantages even after testosterone suppression.
• Adala — Person · Referenced affected student/athlete · 1 mention · first at 0:29
  Adala is described as a girl impacted by the situation—no longer playing sports and excluded from locker room/team—used to illustrate harms alleged in the debate.
• Kathleen Partnet — Person · Referenced attorney (quoted) · 1 mention · first at 4:48
  Kathleen Partnet is quoted advancing the argument that testosterone suppression could disadvantage transgender women, which the speakers rebut.
  That person's at a disadvantage versus biological girls and here's how that was spun by attorney Kathleen Partnet s 11 I do think that's the most prudent but definitely on a record that's more developed because I think a lot of I.
• Ari Maddie — Person · Referenced plaintiff/student athlete · 1 mention · first at 13:15
  Maddie is identified as one of the girls involved, described as passionate and receiving scholarships under Title IX.
  They're strong and they're courageous and I believe they've unleashed warriors by taking this battle on. MK and Maddie, they're passionate about this issue. They receive…
• Labrador — Person · Referenced state Attorney General partner · 1 mention · first at 13:29
  Labrador is named as an Attorney General partnering with Kristen in representing states in litigation related to sex-based sports classifications.
  Not have been able to go to school. and laning is the same. And then we've also been able to partner with Attorneys General Labrador and McCusky in West Virginia and Idaho and…
• McCusky — Person · Referenced state Attorney General partner · 1 mention · first at 13:29
  McCusky is named as an Attorney General partnering with Kristen in representing states in the litigation discussed.
  Not have been able to go to school. and laning is the same. And then we've also been able to partner with Attorneys General Labrador and McCusky in West Virginia and Idaho and…

Companies & orgs

• ACLU — Company · Referenced advocacy organization / litigating side · 1 mention · first at 3:50
  The ACLU is described as arguing for inclusion of boys who identify as girls in girls’ sports categories while still endorsing sex-based athletics generally.
  That there are differences. They agree to that and they don't want to get rid of those differences. They just want boys who identify as girls to be able to come into the girls…
• Planet Fitness — Company · Referenced company in locker-room anecdote · 2 mentions · first at 7:22
  Planet Fitness is the setting for an anecdote about an alleged trans-identifying male in a women’s locker room, used to argue privacy/safety concerns.
  Identity, which is just really crazy. it's crazy. Just the other day, Christian, we played a tape that a young girl at a Planet Fitness out in California took of an allegedly…
• American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) — Company · Alias of ACLU (not explicitly spoken as full name) · 1 mention
  The transcript references 'ACLU'; this entity is included as the expanded name of the same organization.

Concepts & topics

• sports — Concept · Primary applied domain of dispute · 3 mentions · first at 0:33
  Sports is the arena where sex-based classifications, fairness, safety, privacy, and administrative feasibility are argued, including locker rooms and team participation.
• Title IX — Concept · Core legal framework · 3 mentions · first at 1:42
  Title IX is discussed as permitting sex-separated athletics and as the statutory basis for scholarships and equal opportunity claims central to the episode’s litigation narrative.
  So let's just set that up clearly for the audience they were saying okay there are these laws title 9 is allowed to discriminate on sex and the equal protection clause doesn't…
• biological sex — Concept · Core definitional/legal classification · 1 mention · first at 2:48
  Biological sex is argued as the appropriate basis for legislative classifications in sports, contrasted with gender identity; speakers emphasize male puberty advantages.
• gender identity — Concept · Core contested concept · 3 mentions · first at 6:53
  Gender identity is framed as being substituted for sex in law/policy, with speakers arguing this would 'erase women' and undermine sex-based sports categories.
• scholarships — Concept · Practical benefit tied to Title IX · 1 mention · first at 13:17
  Scholarships are cited as benefits received under Title IX by the girls involved, emphasizing concrete stakes beyond abstract legal doctrine.
  Issue. They receive scholarships under Title N. scholarships that if they hadn't received them, they might not have been able to go to school. and laning is the same. And then…
• autogophiles — Concept · Controversial explanatory concept used by host · 1 mention · first at 7:49
  The host claims many male-to-female trans people are 'autogophiles' and uses this to frame the Planet Fitness anecdote as sexual-fantasy-driven rather than identity-driven.

Places & events

• Bostock — Event · Referenced Supreme Court decision shaping debate · 4 mentions · first at 7:01
  Bostock is cited as the key Supreme Court precedent extending Title VII protections to gender identity, which the speakers argue is being leveraged in disputes over bathrooms/locker rooms and potentially sports.
• Bast — Event · Mispronunciation/variant reference to Bostock · 2 mentions · first at 7:01
  The transcript repeatedly says 'Bast' while clearly referring to the Bostock Supreme Court decision; included as a variant mention.
  Yes. Exactly. Right. And so unfortunately for us though, we're stuck with Bast which was a Supreme Court case deciding that under Title 7, which governs employment, gender identity is a protected class and you cannot refuse to.
• West Virginia — Place · Referenced state involved in litigation · 1 mention · first at 13:30
  West Virginia is named as a state whose Attorney General partnered in the litigation discussed.
  Laning is the same. And then we've also been able to partner with Attorneys General Labrador and McCusky in West Virginia and Idaho and they have stood strong in this from the…
• Idaho — Place · Referenced state involved in litigation · 1 mention
  Idaho is named as one of the states whose Attorney General partnered with Kristen in litigation defending sex-based sports classifications.
  Attorneys General Labrador and McCusky in West Virginia and Idaho.

Full transcript with timestamps

0:00 the BPJ kid was somebody who is a male but at a very young age started to do these cross- sex uh hormones and so on. But you just mentioned something that doesn't come out in the coverage of BPJ, which is that there's been an allegation that he repeatedly has been saying to the girls on his teams, you can suck my D. I'm going to take my D and shove it in your pee. And like really vile, disgusting stuff, which is sexual harassment. It absolutely is. And I I mean it's crushing when you talk to Adala. She she's not she's not playing sports anymore. Would you They're in the same high school. They would be on the same team. She has been excluded from her own locker room and her own athletic team.

0:42 Uh because there's one not equal opportunity, not fair play and he's taken a spot on the team. And then would you go back into that situation? No one would.

0:52 Oh no. And I wouldn't let my daughter do it either. I'd be a wor I'd be afraid.

0:56 No. Absolutely. And I think when we're thinking about the legal question here, you know, the question is, can states draw legislative classifications and what's the standard that they should be based on when they're reviewed? Certainly, states can recognize that generally speaking, there are advantages that biological males have that that just exist. And so essentially what was being argued today is that we have to create individualized exceptions first of all which would mean I mean I don't even know how a state would pass a law if every time you needed to make an individualized exception and then second on the assumption that sort of the science doesn't support it and that the record's just clear that the science even puberty

1:39 so let's just set that up clearly for the audience they were saying okay there are these laws title 9 is allowed to discriminate on sex and the equal protection clause doesn't ban it. It's been in place for decades. It does differentiate based on sex between boys and girls, but that's been accepted to do it in this fashion and especially based on sports. That's been made perfectly clear is totally fine and a-okay. And so these plaintiffs couldn't get up there and say title nine and the equal protection clause like have to go um because they're discriminatory against our clients. They said, "Oh, we one of the arguments was we deserve exceptions because our clients don't have male advantage." one because they lowered their testosterone and one because they did this drug regimen. And the justices were like, "So, we have to make an exception like just for just for your clients or like for all clients who

2:30 don't have male advantage and how are we going to figure that out like as a group?" And um like the impossibility of it, Kristen, became pretty clear to me like and and and then we got to the point where the one lawyer in BPJ's case was like, well, I think you know, back on the sex question, you you shouldn't define biological sex in determining any of this because even if you were to go with like the biological sex uh definitions that we could all recognize, there's going to be the XY chromosome kid who's got a limp wrist. He actually said that was talking about how like some boys have limp wrists and like started arguing about like we should factor that stuff in in figuring out who's going to get an exception and who's not.

3:16 It's completely unadministrable. But but I think that also just the underlying truth of what was being debated in just the sense that boys are treated the same under this law. Girls are treated the same under this law. And the idea that somehow boys who identify as girls need a special exception. What about the many others out there? As you said, maybe shorter. I I'm short. Um what about those who have a disability? What about those who are just on medication and that might impact their performance? Are we doing exceptions for all of those individuals? The fact is the ACLU today made the case that they do believe in sex-based athletics. They do believe that there are differences. They agree to that and they don't want to get rid of those differences. They just want boys who identify as girls to be able to come into the girls category. And we need to ensure that that doesn't happen because women deserve equal

4:12 opportunities, fairness, and privacy. They um actually got up there and tried to spin us that boys who are on puberty blockers may actually be at a disadvantage.

4:30 That's it. It was crazy. It was like not even puberty blockers. It was I think this was about like a a post-pubescent male who then lowers his testosterone like like the first plaintiff in Hickox that that person's at a disadvantage versus biological girls and here's how that was spun by attorney Kathleen Partnet s 11

4:52 I I do think that's the most prudent but definitely on a record that's more developed because I think a lot of I think in the end of the day it might end up being a surprise to we don't know yet but I think we have some good evidence that actually at the end of the day being transgender woman. Um, actually to the extent there are and you've repressed your testosterone, you're at somewhat of a disadvantage in many ways because you have again this larger frame with weaker muscles and no testosterone. Uh, okay. By the way, it's not no testosterone. That's a lie, too. They just get their testosterone levels down to something closer to what a female would have, but they still have all the advantage of male puberty and male bone length and strength and heart and lung capacity and all the rest of it.

5:36 You mean like you mean like Will who goes by Leah Thomas? Is that is that Yeah.

5:40 Is that what you're talking about there? Exactly. That's a great example because people can see it with their own eyes. Like that's a postpubescent male who tried to pawn himself off as female and puberty blockers or whatever testosterone, you know, pills to to lower it or not. You can see with your own eyes he's got an advantage over the females.

6:01 Well, the science tells us that they're denser bones, longer bones, that all of these physical advantages don't go away with puberty blockers. Um this again the science confirms that even after puberty blockers there are inherent physical advantages that boys have that girls simply don't and they never will and again I think it underscores the and also I just want to say this why would we create an incentive for children to go on puberty blockers particularly when the court has already just said in scretti that hey this is a medical experiment and we're you know have some concerns about that and the state should be working these things out right now.

6:39 So I I think there's just a lot of implications to that argument, but the science is clear and again so are the rights of the states to be able to draft reasonable legislative classifications that are based on sex. And really what's being done here is an argument to say we don't really mean sex, we mean gender identity and we know that that essentially erases women.

6:59 Yes. Exactly. Right. And so unfortunately for us though, we're stuck with Bast which was a Supreme Court case deciding that under Title 7, which governs employment, gender identity is a protected class and you cannot refuse to hire somebody based on their gender identity, which is just really crazy. I mean, it's crazy. Just the other day, Christian, we played a tape that a young girl at a Planet Fitness out in California took of an allegedly trans person, a guy pretending to be a girl, in the women's locker room at Planet Fitness in California. Not to get too graphic, but clearly he was pleasuring himself in the women's bathroom stall.

7:36 And you could see it, not based on, you couldn't see him exactly, but you could see the shadow down below. And this clever girl took a video of the shadow, which clearly showed what he was doing. And you and I both know that the vast majority of these maleto-female alleged trans people are autogophiles who are actually not gender confused. They're getting off in a sexual fantasy that gets they in which they get turned on by dressing like women and being around women while they do it. And nonetheless, we had to be subjected to uh, you know, the court talking about these people like they're, you know, into in in in Bastto like they're just like you or me or they're just like somebody who's like a black person who has an immutable characteristic that's, you know, skin color or a woman who's got an immutable characteristic that's, you know, her lady parts. And they they actually gave them the protection of the law saying

8:24 you have to hire these people. So if this guy who was pleasuring himself in the planet fitness comes into my my company and he wants me to hire him and I know that he's probably an autogophile, I can't say no because of Bostock. Thanks Neil Gorsuch. He wrote the opinion and so we have to deal with that finding. But they did accept they excluded bathrooms and locker rooms and now today the question is are sports also excluded from that? And I think it's going to go the right way. But can you just give me your what did you make of Gorsuch today because I was alarmed by him?

8:59 Well, Bostock um is a decision that we've essentially been litigating around since it came out. Um we believe it's a wrongly decided decision and a poorly reasoned decision. Um and I I've had Justice Gorsuch rule in some of the cases that I've argued and write the opinions and he's done an a fabulous job, but Bostock is not one of them. Um, and I think his comments today were concerning in the sense of um, talking about whether we should essentially equate uh, those who identify as the opposite sex to some sort of special class status under the law that would be akin to race. But, you know, we don't know the reasons he was asking those questions. Um, so it might have been that he was trying to get to a place to resolve the case in a more straightforward way. But let me say this. I mean, justice, we have been litigating these cases for 10 years and and that issue of, you know, whether the

9:51 states must uh essentially protect women, that's we have a noral argument in that in two days. Um so, you know, we're we're covering the landscape. We are continuing to at the lower court, right? At a lower court.

10:03 Well, at the eighth circuit court of appeals, so it's not too much lower. Um I mean, these are on their way up right now, so it won't be long.

10:10 How is that looking? because like I was so discouraged that they Gorsuch did not seem like he's going to rule in our favor on that one. Um Kavanaaugh seemed like he wasn't going to rule in our favor on that one and we can lose one but we can't lose two.

10:26 I think we don't know when the issues actually presented and it underscores the importance of the American people. It underscores the importance of who we elect in terms of the legislators that are passing laws and the legislative history that they put in place. Um, I would not give up on that argument. I think that there's a reason even the Department of Justice today in the argument said, you know, we're we're not going to take a position on that and on equal protection and we actually believe Title N protects girls in these instances. And when it comes to Justice Gorsuch, again, I think there are easy ways to distinguish Bostock. that was about whether in a hiring and firing situation um and you had to take account of sex in that instance that sex was like what it turned on whether that qualified um under the statute as sex discrimination in this context where we're truly talking about gender

11:16 identity. The the hinge point is not sex. A boy who identifies as a girl is treated the same as a boy who identifies as a boy. That's not sex discrimination. and states have the right to make distinctions on the basis of our biological differences. So, we're going to keep going and I think eventually we're going to win. And if we don't, I worry about Western civilization just candidly. I mean, I think that's how important this issue is that we can we can talk about what we know to be true in human biology.

11:47 I'm honestly I just have to reiterate I I'm so grateful to you. I it's one thing to sit in the anchor chair and get outraged at these stories and there is a role for bringing attention to them in the media. Um, so I'm not completely discounting the press in this, but and and usually they've been a force for evil, but there it takes someone like you to get off the couch, get up early, file the briefs, go through the litigations, which are just painstaking and tedious and the interrogatories and the depositions and the motions to dismiss and the motions for summary judgement and then the motions for appeal and then the appellet briefs back and forth and then the oral arguments and then appeal up to the next level and then it's like it's so much work and I I know it cuz I used to do it for a living and I just I'm so grateful to you for doing it over and over and over to make sure these things come out right and

12:42 it's on all cultural issues, but this one is the one of our time. Kristen, I'm just I I can't imagine how when you go back and you talk to the girls like the girls in this case, what what was their reaction? How are they feeling?

12:54 They're excited. They're relieved that the argument came. But I I mean I'll tell you as we're getting ready yesterday, you know, there's some there's some emotion involved about being, you know, having your face all over and what does it mean in terms of the hate that you get? And um and yet they're strong and they're courageous and I believe they've unleashed warriors by by taking this battle on. Um MK and Maddie, they're passionate about this issue. They receive scholarships under Title N. scholarships that um you know, if they hadn't received them, they might not have been able to go to school. and laning is the same. And then we've also been able to partner with Attorneys General Labrador and McCusky in West Virginia and Idaho and they have stood strong in this from the very beginning as we've represented the states uh alongside them. So there are bright lights in this but it takes endurance

13:43 and grit and just as you said it takes the media, it takes your voice. That's what's helping us turn this corner. It's it's ordinary Americans and it's Americans who have a platform saying we're going to stand for truth. We're contending for our girls.

13:58 A new year means new financial goals like making sure your savings are secure and diversified. Will this be the year you decide to talk to someone from Birch Gold Group? They use an educational approach with a deep understanding of macroeconomics. There are forces pushing the dollar lower and gold higher, which is why they believe every American should own physical gold. So, under until July 30th, not July, January until January 30th. If you're a first-time gold buyer, Birch Gold is offering a rebate of up to $10,000 on qualifying purchases. To claim eligibility and start the process, you just text MK to the number 989898.

14:36 Birch Gold can help you roll an existing IRA or 401k into an IRA in gold, and you are still eligible for a rebate of up to 10 grand. Consider making right now your first time to buy gold and take advantage of a rebate up to $10,000 when you buy before January 30th. Text MK to the number 989898. Claim your eligibility today. Again, text MK to 989898. Thanks so much for watching. If you like what you just saw, hit the subscribe button for more clips and full episodes.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "Leftist Spin From ACLU and Liberal Supreme Court Justices in "Trans" Sports Arguments, with Waggoner"?

Megyn Kelly (Guest), Kristen Waggoner (Guest).

What is "Leftist Spin From ACLU and Liberal Supreme Court Justices in "Trans" Sports Arguments, with Waggoner" about?

The discussion focuses on the intersection of transgender rights in sports and the implications of legal classifications by states, highlighting allegations of misconduct in a high school sports context and the resultant concerns over fairness and safety for female athletes. Central to the argument is the assertion that biological differences between males and females may warrant specific…

What is mentioned in this Megyn Kelly episode?

21 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including sports, Title IX, Kristen, biological sex, Bostock, gender identity. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "Leftist Spin From ACLU and Liberal Supreme Court Justices in "Trans" Sports Arguments, with Waggoner"?

The episode runs 15 min; the transcript is about 2,872 words in 29 timestamped sections.

More from Megyn Kelly

• All analyzed episodes
• Books mentioned on Megyn Kelly
• People mentioned on Megyn Kelly
• Sponsors mentioned on Megyn Kelly
• Topics mentioned on Megyn Kelly