Our amicus brief supports a petition for certiorari filed by Governor Bradley Little of Idaho concerning the Idaho Fairness in Women’s Sports Act. That law bars males from participation in girls’ supports based on clear factual findings of the legislature. The Ninth Circuit found the Act discriminatory and unconstitutional, believing that the new concept of transgenderism legally dislaces biological sex, making all distinctions in law between males and females inherently suspect. We argue that there is nothing in the text, history, or relevant ratification era tradition of the Equal Protection Clause that demonstrates that it should govern transgender issues or women’s sports. Transgenderism is based on “feelings” and how one currently “identifies” which are the polar opposite of an immutable characteristic like race. Demands for special homosexual rights are predicated on the notion “its all about biology,” while transgender rights are predicated on the notion that “biology is irrelevant” and “its all about feelings. Our brief explains that the Bostock decision interpreting Title VII was based hyperliteralism, not originalism, applies only in the employment context, and should not be extended beyond Title VII.
