James Gordon, Minnesota State Representative from 28A District | Facebook
James Gordon, Minnesota State Representative from 28A District | Facebook
The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that biological males have the right to compete in female athletics. Representative Jimmy Gordon, a Republican from Isanti, expressed concern over the decision, stating it could impact the safety of girls and compromise fair competition.
Earlier this year, House Republicans introduced two bills aimed at protecting female athletes and ensuring fairness in school sports. The Preserving Girls Sports Act (H.F. 12) proposed that only female students should participate in sports designated for women or girls. According to Gordon, public opinion polls indicate that about 80 percent of people support this position.
“This court ruling once again undermines fair and safe competition for our girls, and that’s not even debatable,” Gordon said. “Most people agree that biological males shouldn’t be participating in girls’ sports – it’s just common sense. Letting it happen puts fairness and safety at risk for our girls. We need to clarify state law and put this issue to rest before something truly regrettable happens.”
Gordon referenced incidents found online where female athletes were injured while competing against biological males, citing examples such as concussions and dental injuries. He also pointed to a United Nations report indicating that female athletes globally have lost nearly 900 medals to transgender men competing in women's events.
In March, House Republicans attempted to pass the Preserving Girls Sports Act, but Democrats voted against it, resulting in the bill being tabled for potential consideration during the 2026 legislative session along with H.F. 1233.
The Supreme Court's decision was issued in Cooper v. USA Powerlifting. The court determined that USA Powerlifting discriminated against a transgender athlete by barring her from women's competitions under the Human Rights Act. However, the case has been sent back to a lower court to determine if “competitive fairness” can serve as a valid exception.

Alerts Sign-up