By Mark Hancock for TOWNHALL
A strange thing happened at the Supreme Court recently.
Justice Samuel Alito asked a basic question: “What does it mean to be male or female — especially when the law provides sex-based protections like separate athletic teams?”
The attorney’s response was startling: “We do not have a definition for the court.”
Read that again.
A Supreme Court case about sex-based protections is unfolding in a context where one side admits there is no definition of sex being offered to the court.
That isn’t just awkward. It’s absurd. And it reveals where we are as a culture: attempting to enforce fairness, privacy, and equal protection while refusing to define the very categories those protections depend on.
Women’s Sports Exist Because Biology Matters
Let’s say plainly what most people still understand instinctively: women’s sports exist because biology is real.
They were not created because women are less important. They were created because women are equally important — and without a protected category, many women would be pushed out of meaningful competition altogether.
