January Letter from the Board

Welcome to 2026! This month brings another significant moment in the national conversation on trans rights, and we want to help you feel prepared.

On January 13, the Supreme Court will hear West Virginia v. B.P.J. y Little v. Hecox, two cases that will shape how federal courts understand the rights of transgender athletes under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. While these cases deserve careful legal attention, it’s important to be clear: trans dignity is not contingent on what the Court decides. Trans people exist, participate, compete, and thrive in their communities every day. What the Court does influence, however, is a state’s ability to enforce gender norms through the law.

And that, ultimately, is what these sports bans are: tools for enforcing rigid gender norms that limit everyone, but especially women and nonbinary people.

A few months ago, someone asked me the familiar question: “But aren’t these bans protecting girls?” I helped them understand the bigger picture. This framing relies on a very old, very persistent idea—one that predates conversations about trans athletes by centuries. It is the notion that women are in need of protection from anything or anyone who might challenge their perceived weakness. Historically, that idea has been used to keep women out of higher education, out of the workplace, out of voting booths, and out of power. Today, it’s being redeployed in debates about sports.

Rigid gender norms confine womanhood to something delicate and inherently less capable. When lawmakers argue that girls must be “protected” from trans athletes, they are not celebrating girls’ strength; they are denying it. But girls and women who choose to play sports—especially contact sports—step onto the playing field because they like being strong, competitive, fast, skilled, and fierce. They train for it. They celebrate it. They take pride in it.

The narrative behind trans sports bans erases that reality. It perpetuates the myth that trans women make sports more dangerous. It suggests that girls cannot handle the very environments they choose, excel in, and love. It reasserts the idea that womanhood is fundamentally vulnerable. That belief does far more harm to women than the presence of any trans teammate or competitor.

This is the deeper purpose of these laws: not to protect fairness, but to entrench an outdated and decaying gender hierarchy where trans people and women’s power are restricted and carefully policed. And when those gender norms are written into law, they constrict the lives of all women—trans and cis alike.

With the Court highlighting this public debate, many of us will be asked to respond to the same recycled claims we’ve heard for years. Arming ourselves with clear, principled ways to engage these arguments is part of meeting this moment. The following talking points are meant to help you step into those conversations with confidence and clarity.

1. Reframe the debate:
   This is not about “protecting girls”; it is about enforcing narrow gender norms that have historically limited women’s opportunities and autonomy.
2. Affirm women’s strength:
   Women athletes choose competitive, physical environments because they enjoy being powerful. The stereotype of female fragility is the problem—not trans girls.
3. Note that fairness concerns exist across sports:
   Training disparities, size variations, coaching access, and socioeconomic factors all affect performance. Singling out trans athletes reveals the political motive.
4. Connect trans rights to women’s equality:
   Policies that expand gender freedom help all women. Policies that restrict gender expression harm all women.
5. Stay grounded in real—not hypothetical—harms:
   There is no evidence of safety risks posed by trans athletes. The proven harms are exclusion, stigma, and the strengthening of gender norms that limit everyone’s futures.

Pelecanos
Pronouns: they/them/theirs
Junta Directiva de la NTBA