The issues of freedom of speech and protecting women’s sports have put the national spotlight on WV, Harrison County in particular. It’s impossible to explore one without alluding to the other.

Judge Thomas Bedell recently issued a preliminary injunction against the Harrison County Board of Education, “preventing it and its schools from punishing athletes for future free speech.”

I’ll fill you in.

Five middle school girls’ track athletes protested against competing with a biological male in the shotput event. The protest went viral after former University of Kentucky swimmer Riley Gaines praised their courage. Individuals and groups who support the “Save Women’s Sports” (SWS) campaign also lauded the athletes.

Parents filed a lawsuit to protect free speech after their daughters’ coach enforced an “unwritten” rule: athletes who intentionally “scratch” an event would not be allowed to compete in that event at the next meet.

The words “unwritten rule” triggered the problem. In what professional arena is a rule not documented—on paper—a serious rule, a rule not to be broken? Most believe an unwritten rule bends easily—imposed in some cases, but not others.

Another key issue revolves around the true definition of “scratch” in track and field. The NCAA written rule is consistent with what I’ve witnessed in past middle and high school track competitions:

“A Scratch, for any reason, is a voluntary abandonment of an event by the participant prior to the staging of the event. … the staging of the event is the point in time where participants are escorted to, or allowed to be at, the site of the event.”

Therefore, the five athletes did not scratch. They did not elect to take themselves out of the shotput competition “prior to the event.”

They were present. Their names were called. They entered the circle—shotput in hand—and silently walked away without attempting a throw.

The girls did not scratch. They exercised their constitutional right to free speech by protesting an issue that affects them and the futures of female athletes near and far.

Based on the clarification of “scratch,” there was no basis for employing a disciplinary rule, much less an undocumented regulation. The word “unwritten” negates any avenues for justification of the “rule.”

On the other hand, if one reviews the current Presidential administration’s proposed changes to Title IX, the young women’s brave protest is justified.

Edits to the 1972 law to protect equal opportunities for women in sports include replacing the word “sex” with “gender identity.” If that happens, the new Title IX would be based on how a person identifies rather than his biological truth at birth.

This problem does not exist for biological women who wish to identify as men. They do not attempt to enter the male sports arena because they know they cannot physically compete with men. Thus, the reason why males who wish to identify as women must draw the line at competing in women’s sports.

Biological women fought for years for the passage and implementation of Title IX. With one flourish of a pen, a preposterous new definition of women will effectively erase the intent of that law.

As Judge Bedell stated, the case at hand is about freedom of speech. If the court’s decision does not support our valuable constitutional right to be heard, there is reason for serious concern.

As for the issue of protecting women’s sports, the courts have not been kind, e.g., the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (VA) blocking WV’s “Save Women’s Sports Act.”

A double standard exists in this climate that claims to champion women. If courts continue to turn their backs on reality, on saving women’s sports, freedom of speech becomes even more essential.

It is up to all biologically female athletes to be as courageous as five middle schoolers and stand up for truth by standing down.