Kristen Waggoner

And if we're talking about those who identify as the opposite sex, then we say that it's men identifying as women.

But there's no such thing as a cisgender girl, and there's no such thing as a transgender girl.

I wouldn't read too much into the language, but I do think that it's important we continue to insist on biologically correct terms.

And what I didn't hear in the courtroom that really just struck me as being so disappointing, I didn't hear about the women.

And actually, it didn't disappoint me.

It angered me.

It's probably the first time I wanted to stand up and shout, what about the women?

Not just the women in this case, but the male athlete in West Virginia displaced 423 girls 1,100 times and took 57 medals away from them.

Five girls protested from another team.

And in their protest, they were punished by their school.

Their school didn't stand up for them.

And then, of course, we have Adelaide Cross, who was on the team and suffered sexual harassment and even threats in the locker room.

And we have the UN study that says 900 medals were taken in competition as well.

So there was so much focus on what the ACLU was saying, a boy who identifies as a girl who wants to play sports, but no focus on the rights of women.

And we should not have to surrender our rights because a male is identifying as a woman.

I think there was general consensus that males have an advantage over women.

And so I was encouraged that Justice Kagan, as an example, was grappling with what the argument was of the ACLU in terms of under the Equal Protection Clause, how they would actually prove without completely messing up the constitutional standards that are already in place.

Essentially what the ACLU is arguing under the constitutional argument is for an individualized analysis and an individualized level of scrutiny that requires a perfect fit.

So I don't want to go too deep in the weeds on that, but that would be impossible.

That would mean every time the state passes a law, if someone could demonstrate that the reason for that law doesn't apply to them, they likely would have a constitutional argument under the Equal Protection Clause, which is absolutely crazy.