The protection of women and girls in sports has emerged as one of the most contentious issues in both American and British society, with recent legislative and judicial developments on both sides of the Atlantic highlighting the complex intersection of women's rights, transgender inclusion, and competitive fairness. At the center of this debate in the United States stands HR28, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025, which passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 218-206 on January 14, 2025. In the UK, the Supreme Court ruled in April that, for the purposes of the Equality Act, a woman is someone who was born female. The ruling has huge implications for women's sport.
Let's examine the issue of transgender participation in sports by looking at both HR28 and the UK ruling and explore some of the implications for sport at both the elite and grassroots level.
A Divided House: The US Legislative Battle
The debate surrounding HR28 has reflected deep ideological divisions within Congress and across the American public. The bill would amend Title IX to establish that "sex shall be recognized based solely on a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth." This biological definition explicitly prohibits males from participating in athletic programs designated for women and girls, though it allows males to train with female teams provided they don't displace females from roster spots, competition opportunities, or scholarships.
The bill includes a provision for the Comptroller General to conduct a comprehensive study examining potential negative impacts on girls from allowing males to participate in female sports, documenting "displacement or discouragement from sports participation, deprivation of a roster spot on a team or sport, loss of the opportunity to participate in a practice or competition, loss of a scholarship or scholarship opportunities."
Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg's remarks capture the bill's central argument: "Title IX was created to give women and girls equal access to education and sports. Unfortunately, the intent of Title IX is under direct assault from the radical left. Allowing biological males to compete against women jeopardizes competition and fair play, both critical tenets of sports."
Representative Greg Steube, the bill's sponsor, frames the legislation as standing for fundamental truth: "The radical left is not in step with the American people on the issue of protecting women's sports. Americans have loudly spoken that they do not want men stealing sports records from women, entering their daughters' locker rooms, replacing female athletes on teams, and taking their daughters' scholarship opportunities."
However, opposition to the bill has been equally passionate. U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, spoke out on the Senate floor, saying, “Put yourself in the shoes of these families for just a moment. Imagine being the parent of a trans kid and telling your child they are not allowed to play on the same sports team as their friends at school because a politician said they couldn’t.” Durbin also pointed out that there are fewer than 10 transgender collegiate athletes out of more than half a million, calling into question the Republican's urgency on this matter.
The American Civil Liberties Union has characterized HR28 as discriminatory legislation that targets transgender youth without scientific basis. ACLU senior legislative counsel Louise Melling stated: "This bill is a solution in search of a problem. There is no evidence that transgender girls participating in school sports poses any threat to cisgender girls' opportunities or safety."
Read the full IssueVoter analysis here.
The UK Supreme Court and the Equality Act 2010
The debate in the United States mirrors remarkably similar developments in the United Kingdom, where the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling on April 15, 2025, defined a woman as someone "born female" under the Equality Act 2010. This landmark decision echoes HR28's biological approach, though it emanated from Britain's judicial branch rather than its legislative one.
While American readers may be familiar with Title IX, the UK operates under a different legal framework. The Equality Act 2010 is Britain's comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, similar in purpose to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 combined with Title IX and other federal civil rights laws. It prohibits discrimination based on nine "protected characteristics," including sex and gender reassignment.
Unlike the United States, where the Supreme Court serves as the highest federal court with constitutional matters as its primary focus, the UK Supreme Court functions as the final court of appeal for civil matters across England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and in limited cases, Scotland. Established in 2009, it replaced the House of Lords as the country's highest judicial authority and consists of twelve justices who, unlike US Supreme Court justices, typically serve until retirement age rather than for life. The UK Supreme Court is generally considered to be apolitical and its rulings tend to be comparatively low profile, with some notable exceptions.
The case reached the UK Supreme Court after years of lower court battles between the Scottish government and For Women Scotland, a campaign group. Scottish ministers had argued that transgender people with Gender Recognition Certificates (legal documents recognizing their acquired gender) should be counted as women for purposes of sex-based protections. The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation, ruling that the Equality Act defines sex as biological sex.
Lord Hodge, delivering the Supreme Court judgment, emphasized that while the ruling protects women's rights, it also affirms protections for transgender people: "This judgement gives transgender people protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender."
The UK ruling has immediate implications for sports participation, though its impact differs from the potential effects of HR28. While the Supreme Court decision clarifies the legal definition of sex under existing equality law, HR28 would create specific prohibitions within educational athletics programs receiving federal funding. The practical applications vary significantly between the two countries' approaches.
Competing Voices in the American Debate
The American conversation around HR28 encompasses a wide spectrum of perspectives from athletes, advocates, medical professionals, and civil rights organizations. Many prominent female athletes have publicly supported the legislation, arguing that biological differences create inherent advantages in male physiology that persist even after hormone therapy.
Former University of Pennsylvania swimmer Paula Scanlan, who competed alongside transgender swimmer Lia Thomas, has become a vocal opponent of trans women competing in women's sport: "Eighty percent of Americans agree that men do not belong in women’s sports, and I urge all senators to vote in the best interests of their constituents. Having been forced to compete against and undress alongside a male athlete, I never want another girl to experience the same."
Opposition to the bill has been equally passionate. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, representing 240 national organizations, issued a statement opposing HR28: "This discriminatory proposal seeks to exclude transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people from athletics programs in schools. Although the authors of the legislation represent themselves as serving the interests of cisgender girls and women, this legislation does not address the longstanding barriers all girls and women have faced in their pursuit of athletics."
The Human Rights Campaign has also spoken out against HR28: "We are fortunate that transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people are present in our community, and we fully embrace them as members of our community. As organizations that care deeply about ending sex-based discrimination and ensuring equal educational opportunities, we support laws and policies that protect transgender people from discrimination, including full and equal participation in sports."
Medical organizations have offered varying perspectives. While the American College of Pediatricians supports biological sex-based policies, the American Academy of Pediatrics has called for a more nuanced approach that considers individual circumstances and scientific evidence on a case-by-case basis.
Grassroots and School Sports
Perhaps the most significant divergence between the US and UK approaches lies in how they affect grassroots and school-level athletics. HR28, if enacted into law, would apply to all educational institutions receiving federal funding, from elementary schools to NCAA Division I programs. The bill states explicitly that recipients of federal financial assistance "shall not permit a person whose sex is male to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls."
In the UK, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has begun implementing the Supreme Court ruling at the school level. Their interim guidance states that "pupils who identify as trans girls (biological boys) should not be permitted to use the girls' toilet or changing facilities, and pupils who identify as trans boys (biological girls) should not be permitted to use the boys' toilet or changing facilities."
Dr. Seema Patel, associate professor in sports law at Nottingham Law School, notes the uncertainty surrounding grassroots participation: "There are still a lot of unknowns here. I think the impact will be determined by what level of research and resource the government wants to put into this to understand the sporting context."
Elite Athletics and Policy Evolution
Both countries have witnessed significant policy shifts at the elite level, though their approaches differ in origin and implementation. In the United States, sporting bodies have largely determined their own policies independent of federal legislation. Athletics, cycling, and aquatics have implemented outright bans on transgender women at elite levels, while other sports maintain eligibility criteria based on testosterone levels.
The UK has seen similar developments, with British sports governing bodies often leading rather than following national policy. For instance, British Cycling banned transgender women from the women's category after high-profile trans cyclist Emily Bridges was prevented from competing in elite women's races. British Triathlon became the first British sporting body to establish an open category for transgender athletes.
The reaction from athletes themselves has been notably similar in both countries. Former Olympic silver medallist Sharron Davies expressed her satisfaction with the UK ruling: "I am obviously extremely pleased. It been 10 years since I have been battling for fair sport for women against this absurdity that biological reality doesn't exist and it doesn't affect something like sport, so it's been a very good day."
Meanwhile, trans rights advocates express deep concern. Natalie Washington, campaign lead for Football vs Transphobia, warns about the social implications: "What I'm sure we'll see is greater reticence from transgender people to engage with sport and physical activity. We know that this is a group of people that are adversely affected by not being able to access social benefits of being involved in sport."
Legal Frameworks and Future Implications
As HR28 moves to the Senate, its path forward remains uncertain. While Republicans hold a 53-47 majority, the 60-vote threshold required to overcome a filibuster presents a significant challenge. In the UK, the full implications of the Supreme Court ruling will take time to become clear.
As these developments continue to unfold, both countries grapple with balancing competing rights and interests. The debate extends beyond athletic competition to fundamental questions about how society defines sex, gender, and fairness.
The coming months will reveal whether these parallel paths converge toward a shared understanding or diverge into distinctly different approaches to one of the most challenging social issues of our time. What remains clear is that the conversation about transgender athletes in women's sports will continue to evolve as both nations seek to protect the interests of all their citizens while maintaining the integrity of competitive athletics.
About BillTrack50 – BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.
IssueVoter is a nonpartisan, nonprofit online platform dedicated to giving everyone a voice in our democracy. As part of their service, they summarize important bills passing through Congress and set out the opinions for and against the legislation, helping us to better understand the issues. BillTrack50 is delighted to partner with IssueVoter and we link to their analysis from relevant bills. Look for the IssueVoter link at the top of the page:
