Swedzinski: Court decision deals blow to female sports

ST. PAUL – The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled biological males have the right to compete in female athletics, a decision Rep. Chris Swedzinski, R-Ghent, 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. Swedzinski said polls show around 80 percent of people agree with the bill’s position.

“Our state is hurting our girls’ ability to compete safely and on a level playing field,” Swedzinski said. “Common sense and the public majority say biological males shouldn’t be in girls’ sports. This court ruling raises serious issues of fairness and safety and highlights just how important it is we clarify state law to stop this from happening.”

Swedzinski said a quick internet search turns up loads of 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-