Perryman: Court decision harms female sports

ST. PAUL – The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled biological males have the right to compete in female athletics, a decision Rep. Bernie Perryman, R-St. Cloud, said threatens the safety of girls and undermines fair play.

House Republicans introduced a pair of bills earlier this year to provide clear protections for female athletes and ensure fairness in competition, but House Democrats blocked them from passing. The Preserving Girls Sports Act (H.F. 12) specifically states that only female students may participate in school sports restricted on the basis of sex to women or girls.

“People I talk with just don’t get how it’s considered acceptable for biological males to compete in girls’ sports,” said Perryman, a co-author of the bill. “That is why we authored legislation to provide clarification in state law. Instead, by blocking it, the other side is putting girls at risk and rolling back decades of progress made through Title IX. And now, the Supreme Court has proven our concerns to be valid, underscoring how important it is for us to clarify state law.”

Perryman said a quick internet search turns up numerous stories where girls competing against biological males in women’s sports have been hurt, including everything from concussions to losing teeth. And a United Nations report found that female athletes around the world have lost almost 900 medals to transgender men competing in their events.

House Republicans last March sought to pass the Preserving Girls Sports Act, but House Democrats blocked the move. House Republicans tabled the bill after Democrats voted against it, keeping the legislation available for consideration in the 2026 session – along with the similarly themed H.F. 1233.

In the meantime, the door remains open for biological males to continue participating in girls sports – as confirmed by the Supreme Court. Its Wednesday ruling was in Cooper v. USA Powerlifting, where it found that USA Powerlifting discriminated against a transgender athlete by banning her from women's events under the Human Rights Act. However, the court sent the case back to a lower court to decide if a “competitive fairness” defense could be a valid exception.

-30-