What Happened at Supreme Court in MASSIVE Day For Protecting Women's Sports, with Kristen Waggoner

What this episode is about

The discussion focuses on a significant Supreme Court case related to the protection of women's sports, analyzing the implications of the arguments presented, particularly regarding the definition of sex in the context of Title IX. Kristen Waggoner emphasizes the need to prioritize the rights and voices of female athletes who are affected by these legal decisions, highlighting concerns about existing inequalities and concessions made by opposing arguments.

Key takeaways

• The ACLU's retreat on Title IX highlights the fragility of modern legal arguments—less conviction, more concession.
• In a formal setting, decorum reigns, but the stakes of gender in sports demand an emotional roar!
• With 423 girls impacted by one boy's competition, the unseen consequences of 'compassion' demand urgent attention.
• Supreme Court justices are keen to dissect legal evasions—hey BPJ's lawyer, defining 'biological sex' might be imperative!
• While BPJ seeks attention, true champions quietly bear the cost—let's not forget the voices of sidelined female athletes.

Who speaks in this episode?

• Megyn Kelly (Guest) · 7 min speaking
• Kristen Waggoner (Guest) · 9 min speaking

What is discussed, and when

1. 0:00 – 3:00: Title IX
2. 3:00 – 6:00: Adelaide Cross, biological sex, Brett Kavanaugh, Kanji Brown Jackson
3. 6:00 – 9:00: Brett Kavanaugh, cisgender, Kanji Brown Jackson
4. 9:00 – 12:00: Birch Gold Group, biological sex, Idaho case
5. 12:00 – 15:00: biological sex, Title IX
6. 15:00 – 16:06: biological sex

Notable quotes from "What Happened at Supreme Court in MASSIVE Day For Protecting Women's Sports, with Kristen Waggoner"

• She was completely knocked out because as Justice Kavanaaugh said today, there's limited number of spots.

  about Brett Kavanaugh · at 4:29

• Megan, there is so much to this case that I mean it's just Yes. It starts with our client Adelaide Across was on the same team as BPJ was competing in the top of the team and…

  about Adelaide Cross · at 5:34

• I hear that. And I heard it about 12 times today from Katanji Brown Jackson, who of course was unable to define what a woman is during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing.…

  about Kanji Brown Jackson · at 8:14

• Reality in these cases. But man, if today is not a reminder that we have much more work to do and again in the Idaho case as an example, we represent two athletes who were…

  about Idaho case · at 9:02

• 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.

  about Birch Gold Group · at 9:53

• He knew this is going to seal our fate in many cases. God forbid they just say that a woman is a has a certain set of gamtates and a man has a different set of gamtates. The women's will turn into ovaries, the mans will turn into testes.

  about biological sex · at 10:46

• You don't think we should have an operating definition of sex in Title 9.

  about Title IX · at 13:43

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

• Adelaide Cross — Person · Referenced impacted athlete / client example · 2 mentions · first at 4:08
  Adelaide Cross is cited as a female athlete displaced from competition due to BPJ's participation, used to illustrate concrete harms to girls' athletic opportunities.
• Kanji Brown Jackson — Person · Referenced Supreme Court Justice (criticized) · 2 mentions · first at 3:04
  Jackson is discussed as frequently using the term 'cisgender' and as attempting to avoid defining 'woman'; the speakers connect this to Title IX/sex-definition disputes.
• Brett Kavanaugh — Person · Referenced Supreme Court Justice · 2 mentions · first at 4:34
  Kavanaugh is portrayed as sympathetic to the argument that limited roster spots create exclusion harms for girls, and as 'good today' by the host.

Concepts & topics

• biological sex — Concept · Core topic / disputed legal definition · 6 mentions · first at 3:15
  The episode argues that courts must define biological sex to adjudicate equal protection and Title IX claims, and portrays opposing counsel as urging the Court not to define it.
• Title IX — Concept · Core legal framework · 2 mentions · first at 0:40
  Title IX is the statutory basis for sex-discrimination arguments in the episode; the speakers emphasize that the term 'sex' must be defined and that the statute anticipates sex-separated athletics and facilities.
• cisgender — Concept · Contested terminology / language framing · 1 mention · first at 8:02
  The term is discussed as part of the language regime around sex and gender; the host calls it a slur and highlights its repeated use by Justice Jackson as emblematic of definitional avoidance.
  Cisgender I find cisgender girl and cisgender woman a slur. I recoil when I hear that. And I heard it about 12 times today from Katanji Brown Jackson, who of course was unable…

Places & events

• Idaho case — Event · Referenced related legal case · 1 mention · first at 9:07
  The Idaho case is cited as another example where Kristen's side represents female athletes allegedly harmed by male participation in women's collegiate sports, broadening the episode beyond the BPJ matter.

Sponsors

• Birch Gold Group — Company · Sponsor / advertised product · 3 mentions · first at 9:36
  The host reads an ad promoting Birch Gold Group, recommending physical gold purchases and IRA/401k rollovers with a rebate offer.

Full transcript with timestamps

0:00 Kristen, thank you so much for doing this with us today. I'm so grateful to you and so proud of you because it went so well uh for the side of sanity today. Give me your take. I gave the audience my quick back of the envelope, but your take is more important and more informed than mine.

0:13 Well, I loved hearing your take first because I you know, I feel like we're all somewhat emotionally invested in it, but when you're sitting in it and you kind of know the ins and outs, um let's just start with the court. I mean, I think overall I agree with your take. 63 is probably the way it will result with some concurrences uh as well. I think that the um the argument went very well. I was surprised at well maybe not surprised but delighted by some of the ACLU's concessions. They essentially rolled back their arguments on Title 9 alto together even saying that the lower court uh decision that they won under was wrong. So that's great. I think that it the veil was brought back on the fact that they refuse to even define what sex is. So I'm not sure how you can find sex discrimination if you can't articulate what sex is.

1:03 Crazy. Put a pin in that audience because we are definitely coming back to that issue. Keep going.

1:08 And then I mean I don't know. I'm really curious to see what you think about this. And maybe it's because like we have been living these cases out from we started in about 2015. first big stuff comes up 2017 where two boys take 15 state championships um from girls. So that's how long we've been in this and I've been with these female athletes. You've interviewed them and we have the privilege of representing three that are in that case and I wanted so badly to just stand up and scream why are we not talking about the women here.

1:39 I don't want to hear about hecks or BPJ. I want to talk about these girls, the girls that are impacted. And it just that's probably what made me most upset.

1:49 That just gave me the chills. That just gave me the chills when you said that. There there were multiple times and it did dawn on me, Kristen, that like the Supreme Court is really one of the last few places where there's true decorum that is maintained. You know, it is very formal. You are expected to behave. Every reporter had a suit on. It's not casual. Everybody, every guest that's in attendance there has got their Sunday best on. You may not stand up to stretch. you will sit there and you will obey the rules or you will be promptly ejected. And I like that. I like that a lot. They the judges come in in their robes. It's all very formal. Um but I actually was tempted to break the protocol a couple of times to stand up and be like, "What? What?" Right? like the the nonsense when the lawyer for BPJ in the second case, this is a a boy pretending to be a girl who wants the right to play in girl sports and said

2:44 the one thing you really shouldn't do in your ruling because he was sensing that they were going to rule against him. And now this lawyer has switched to let me limit my laws here so that it's just these 27 states can uphold their ban, but don't touch my 23 that affirmatively allow this. And so I think it was was it Kagan or was it Katanji Brown Jackson was like tell us what not to rule like tell us exactly how we're supposed to rule um so that we can sort of protect these other rights and he was like for the love of God don't don't define biological sex

3:19 what it it's stunning but it that is their argument. I mean, you know, we've got to look behind the curtain and know what is the issue in this. It is about biological reality and it is about erasing the differences between men and women and that cannot happen on our watch. It cannot happen. But, you know, these girls that we're talking about, the opening argument of, you know, BPJ is this 11year-old that just wants to have fun. We should have compassion for BPJ. BPJ is obviously very confused and we should treat BPJ with kindness. But let's be clear about this. BPJ has taken 423 girls have been affected and lost places since BPJ competed in middle school. 1100 times this has happened and he's taken 57 medals from the girls. So let's talk to those girls like our client Adelaide Cross who couldn't compete. She was in the top three on her team. He starts, you know, throwing amazing supposedly after puberty blockers, you

4:19 know, when all this is not supposed to have an advantage, at least from what we heard today, and instead is displacing all these girls. And now Adela wasn't even able to compete in the competition. She was completely knocked out because as Justice Kavanaaugh said today, there's limited number of spots.

4:34 That's right. He was good. Kavanaaugh was good today. Gorsuch was a nightmare. Kavanaaugh was good. Even Chief Justice Roberts was good. We have to talk about Gorsuch in a second. But the thing on BPJ is if you listen to just today's argument because his lawyers were up there saying, "Oh, he wasn't very good." And their briefs were like, "He wasn't good. He he he barely made the track team." And then when he got on, he he wasn't at the front of the pack. And like eventually after a lot of hard work, he moved up a little. But like you would really think this is a Charlie Brown of athletes. And none of those facts that you just said came out today in court. They left everybody there with the impression that this was like not even a middling athlete and like what are you complaining about? This this poor guy was like this little weakling who barely made the team. But Kristen, wasn't this this was the case at which I

5:25 saw Riley Gaines with the shot putters who who walked out of the shot put circle and said, "I'm not competing against a boy." And he had started to dominate.

5:34 Megan, there is so much to this case that um I mean it's just Yes. It starts with our client Adelaide Across was on the same team as BPJ was competing in the top of um the team and had these spots and you know the first year when BPJ was in sixth grade, she was in seventh grade and during that time um you know she was still in the top spot. By the next year she starts getting knocked out. BPJ allegedly is starting to throw 10 to 20 feet longer and then all these girls are falling off because he's taking these these spots in in higher competition. Next thing you know, the five shot put or discus um people were at a different school actually and they protested and said, "We're not competing against a boy. It's not fair to make us do that." So, this is not even BPJ's team or Adela's team. It's a completely different school protesting.

6:25 And yes, those girls are punished by their school. Where is their protest? This is We're showing some of the girls. They got in the circle as though they were going to throw it and then they walked out in protest which takes so much guts. I mean especially in this environment. It was it was an act of true courage for these girls to take a stand. Not not mentioned at all today. And the number like what does the court have to go along with she pronouns for these boys? It was infuriating Kristen because of course it gets to the very issue of why we're all there. Reality matters. actual fact biological pronouns mattered, but the whole the whole court went along with the lie today by using she her pronouns.

7:12 Well, I wouldn't say the whole court did, but I would say some surprising justices did.

7:17 I didn't hear Alto do it. I didn't hear Thomas do it, but I definitely heard Gorsuch do it. I I think I heard Barrett do it.

7:25 Um and I think I heard Kavanaaugh do it. It is language is so critical and a the court knows that I mean you know majority of the court would consider themselves to be originalists and textualists and but at the same time this decorum that you're talking about no one wants to hurt people no one wants to hurt their feelings or unnecessarily offend and and I think that's how this thing you know the women got steamrolled in the first place is is we don't want to have to confront and hurt people but I think we're getting confused about what compassion and kindness actually looks like because it It can't exist without truth. And so you're right. I mean, even the idea of having to keep track of cisgender and transgender and transgender girls versus I mean, it was it's mental

8:08 cisgender I find cisgender girl and cisgender woman a slur. I I recoil when I hear that. And I heard it about 12 times today from Katanji Brown Jackson, who of course was unable to define what a woman is during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing. and once again today seemed very focused on how to get around defining women and get around a ruling that would help women in any way which she sensed as I think you and I did is coming from the majority.

8:39 Well, remember that in her nomination when she answered that question of she couldn't answer what a woman was, she said she'd need to talk to a biologist. And fortunately, the record is chalk full of them in these cases. Um there is ample science um real biologists that actually know what it means to be a woman and can define it. And uh I believe the court will uphold biological reality in these cases. But man, if today is not a reminder that we have much more work to do and again in the Idaho case as an example, we represent two athletes who were beaten many times by a man at the collegiate level who took the Big Sky Championship. So, you know, there are there's so many different women that have suffered as a result. And of course, we haven't even started talking about locker rooms.

9:28 I know exactly. That's not really an issue here. 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.

10:08 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. So, let me just play this this moment where the they Alo called BS on BPJ's lawyer who was trying to say don't whatever you do in this opinion do not define biological sex because of course he knew this is going to seal our fate in many cases. God forbid they just say that a woman is a has a certain set of gamtates and a man has a different set of gamtates. The women's will turn into ovaries, the mans will turn into testes.

11:00 Period. or a woman can have a baby or a woman has XX chromosome, whatever. Um, they don't want that. And Alto was the first one to break the dam because this guy was getting away with it. Like the last thing you should do is this. And Alo brought some sense. And then I was pleased to hear the chief justice tag team in like, yeah, what Alto said. Here's that moment.

11:23 And what is that definition for equal protection purposes? What does what does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?

11:31 Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I think that the underlying enactment, whatever it was, the policy, the law, the would have to we'd have to have an understanding of how the state or the government was understanding that term to figure out whether or not someone was excluded. We do not have a definition for the court and we don't take issue with the we're not disputing the definition here. What we're saying is that the way it applies in practice is to exclude birth sex males categorically from women's teams and that there's a subset of those birthex males where it doesn't make sense to do so according to the state's own interest.

12:01 Well, how can you how can a court determine whether there's discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means for equal protection purposes? I think here we just notice we we we basically know that the that they've identified pursuant to their own statute, Lindsay qualifies as a birth sex male and she's being excluded categorically from the women's teams as the statute. So we're taking the statute's definitions as we find them and we don't dispute them.

12:30 Okay, that was in the first case he and then it happened again in the second case with BPJ when there was a male attorney up there. We'll play that in a second. Title N prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. It's a statutory term. It must mean something. You're arguing that here there's discrimination on the basis of sex. And how can we decide that question without knowing what sex means in Title 9? I mean, it could mean biological sex. It could mean gender identity. It could mean whatever a state wants to define it to mean, but it has to mean something. How can we decide that without knowing what this statutory term means?

13:12 Well, I I think there are a whole range of sex-based characteristics that can give rise to discrimination. I think if someone said, "I'm going to discriminate against anyone who acts in a feminine manner, like anyone with limp wrists, I don't care who they are, but I'm gonna discriminate against them." Like, I think that would be sex discrimination. it would be sort of gender presentation. I would but I wouldn't say that's not covered by Title Nine. And so I just I I'm not saying that biological differences aren't part of sex.

13:43 You don't think we should have an operating definition of sex in Title 9. Now I understand the idea that um well the question then becomes not whether or not there's discrimination on the basis of sex but whether there's discrimination on the basis of whatever characteristic you think should be included in the definition of sex. Now when it's used as a statutory term I'm not sure you have that kind of flexibility. The question then would be instead what does Congress think the words word means? But he that that's really what it comes down to, right, Kristen? And do you think that they will have the courage to do the very basic work of defining what biological sex means in order to determine a case in which these bans are based on biological sex?

14:34 I think it's going to be very challenging to resolve the equal protection claim without bringing some sort of definition in on sex and it being related to biological sex. I I mean under the equal protection clause the whole threshold is if when the legislature draws lines are they drawing those lines so that they're treating similarly situated people similarly and so the biological distinctions here matter greatly and I think that you have to define it for equal protection purposes and we all know what it means um you know the only person that doesn't seem to know are are progressive left activists who were actually trying to erase the rights of women and girls across this nation title 7 als Also, I think you just look at the statute which says, is there sex-based discrimination?

15:20 And the statute itself anticipates that you will separate the sexes based on athletics as well as in living facilities because again, they know what biological sex means and what it meant when the law was passed. So, I I think the court may not want to fully go there in this, but I think you almost have to um to to resolve it, and I sure hope they do. I mean, I just kept thinking, Megan, I can't 10 more years of this is insanity.

15:47 No, I mean by the day by the day. By the second. 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 "What Happened at Supreme Court in MASSIVE Day For Protecting Women's Sports, with Kristen Waggoner"?

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

What is "What Happened at Supreme Court in MASSIVE Day For Protecting Women's Sports, with Kristen Waggoner" about?

The discussion focuses on a significant Supreme Court case related to the protection of women's sports, analyzing the implications of the arguments presented, particularly regarding the definition of sex in the context of Title IX. Kristen Waggoner emphasizes the need to prioritize the rights and voices of female athletes who are affected by these legal decisions, highlighting concerns about…

What is mentioned in this Megyn Kelly episode?

8 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including biological sex, Title IX, Adelaide Cross, Kanji Brown Jackson, Brett Kavanaugh, cisgender. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "What Happened at Supreme Court in MASSIVE Day For Protecting Women's Sports, with Kristen Waggoner"?

The episode runs 16 min; the transcript is about 3,009 words in 30 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