The US Supreme Court made a decision about sports. Now, states can stop transgender students from playing in sports for their gender identity.

美國最高法院針對運動項目做出了一項決定。現在，各州可以禁止跨性別學生根據其性別認同參加運動項目。

The Court says states can use biological sex for sports. Judge Kavanaugh says state leaders know the science best. He says judges should not decide for each student.

法院表示各州可以使用生物學性別來決定運動項目。Kavanaugh 法官表示州政府領導者最了解相關科學。他認為法官不應為每位學生單獨決定。

Some groups are happy. They say this makes sports fair and safe for girls. Other groups are sad. They say this is bad for transgender youth.

部分團體對此感到滿意。他們表示這樣做能讓女學生參加運動更加公平且安全。而其他團體則感到難過，認為這對跨性別青少年不利。

Not many transgender students play in these sports. However, 27 states now have laws to stop them. Some people want new, separate leagues, but others do not like this idea.

實際上並沒有多少跨性別學生參加這些運動。然而，目前已有 27 個州制定法律禁止他們參加。有些人希望建立新的獨立聯賽，但其他人並不認同這個想法。

Now, each state and school decides who can play in their sports.

現在由每個州和學校決定誰可以參加他們的運動項目。

The United States Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 that states can legally stop transgender student-athletes from competing in sports categories that match their gender identity.

美國最高法院以 6 比 3 的投票結果裁定，州政府可以合法禁止跨性別學生運動員參加與其性別認同相符的體育類別。

The court's decision in the cases of Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. BPJ states that the 14th Amendment and Title IX do not prevent states from limiting sports participation to biological sex. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote the majority opinion, emphasized that state governments and schools have the authority to use medical and scientific data to set these rules. Furthermore, he asserted that courts are not the right place to make individual decisions about which athletes can compete.

法院在 Little v. Hecox 和 West Virginia v. BPJ 等案件中的裁決指出，第 14 修正案和《第九條》(Title IX) 並不阻止州政府將體育參與限制在生理性別之內。撰寫多數意見書的法官 Brett Kavanaugh 強調，州政府和學校有權使用醫療和科學數據來制定這些規則。此外，他主張法院並非決定哪些運動員可以參賽的適當場所。

Different groups have very different reactions to this ruling. Conservative groups, such as the Alliance Defending Freedom, claim the decision is necessary to ensure fair competition and protect biological females from physical risks. On the other hand, lawyers from the ACLU and Lambda Legal argue that this is a major setback for transgender youth. However, they noted that the ruling is narrow, meaning it does not force states to discriminate or remove Title IX protections for transgender students in other school activities.

不同團體對此裁決有截然不同的反應。如 Alliance Defending Freedom 等保守團體聲稱，此決定對於確保公平競爭以及保護生理女性免於身體風險是必要的。另一方面，來自 ACLU 和 Lambda Legal 的律師則認為，這是跨性別青少年的重大挫折。然而，他們指出該裁決範圍較窄，這意味著它不會強制州政府採取歧視行為，或在其他學校活動中移除對跨性別學生的《第九條》保護。

Data shows that while the political debate is intense, the actual number of transgender athletes is quite small. Despite this, the ruling supports 27 states that already have bans in place and puts pressure on states with more inclusive policies. Some have suggested creating separate sports leagues for transgender participants, but human rights organizations oppose this idea because they believe it would further isolate these students.

數據顯示，儘管政治爭論激烈，但跨性別運動員的實際人數相當少。儘管如此，該裁決支持了已經實施禁令的 27 個州，並對政策較包容的州造成壓力。有些人建議為跨性別參與者建立獨立的體育聯賽，但人權組織反對這一想法，因為他們認為這將進一步孤立這些學生。

This ruling moves the power over sports eligibility away from the federal level, leaving individual states and schools to decide the rules for transgender participation.

此裁決將體育參賽資格的決定權從聯邦層面移開，交由各州政府和學校決定跨性別參與的規則。

The United States Supreme Court has issued a 6-3 ruling upholding the legality of state-level prohibitions against transgender student-athletes competing in sports categories aligned with their gender identity.

美國最高法院以 6 比 3 的裁決，維持了州級禁止跨性別學生運動員根據其性別認同參加體育競賽的合法性。

The judicial determination, delivered in the conjoined cases of Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. BPJ, establishes that the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and Title IX do not preclude states from restricting athletic participation to biological sex. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, authoring the majority opinion, posited that state legislatures and educational institutions possess the requisite competency to evaluate medical and scientific data to establish eligibility criteria. The Court further asserted that the judiciary is an inappropriate forum for conducting individualized athlete assessments.

該司法裁定是在 Little v. Hecox 與 West Virginia v. BPJ 的併案中做出的，確立了第 14 修正案的「平等保護條款」與《第九條》（Title IX）並不排除各州將體育參與限制在生物性別之內。撰寫多數意見書的布雷特·卡萬法官認為，州立法機關與教育機構具有評估醫療與科學數據以制定資格標準的必要能力。法院進一步主張，司法機關並非進行個別運動員評估的適當論壇。

Stakeholder positioning remains starkly bifurcated. Conservative advocacy groups, including the Alliance Defending Freedom, characterize the ruling as a necessary measure to ensure fair competition and mitigate physical risks to biological females. Conversely, legal representatives from the ACLU and Lambda Legal describe the outcome as a significant setback for marginalized youth, though they note the ruling is narrow. They emphasize that the Court did not mandate discrimination, nor did it broadly invalidate Title IX protections for transgender students in non-athletic contexts.

利益相關者的立場依然截然分化。包括「捍衛自由聯盟」在內的保守派倡議團體，將此裁決描述為確保公平競爭並降低生物女性身體風險的必要措施。相反地，來自 ACLU 與 Lambda Legal 的法律代表將結果描述為邊緣化青少年的重大挫折，儘管他們注意到該裁決範圍較窄。他們強調，法院並未強制要求歧視，也沒有廣泛地廢除《第九條》在非體育情境下對跨性別學生的保護。

Quantitative data suggests a disparity between the political intensity of the debate and the actual number of affected athletes. Reports indicate minimal participation of transgender students in state sports, with some jurisdictions reporting negligible figures. Despite this, the ruling provides legal cover for 27 states currently enforcing such bans, while creating institutional pressure on jurisdictions that maintain inclusive policies. Proposed compromises, such as the establishment of separate athletic leagues for transgender participants, have encountered significant opposition from human rights organizations citing concerns over further marginalization.

定量數據顯示，辯論的政治激烈程度與實際受影響的運動員人數之間存在差異。報告指出，跨性別學生在州級體育活動中的參與率極低，部分司法管區報告的數字幾乎可忽略不計。儘管如此，該裁決為目前執行此類禁令的 27 個州提供了法律依據，同時對維持包容政策的司法管區造成制度壓力。擬議的妥協方案（例如為跨性別參與者建立獨立的體育聯賽）遭到了人權組織的強烈反對，理由是擔心會導致進一步的邊緣化。

The ruling decentralizes the authority over athletic eligibility, leaving the determination of transgender participation to individual state and school jurisdictions.

該裁決將體育參賽資格的權限去中心化，將跨性別參與的決定交由各州及學校司法管區決定。