I’ll warn you, what follows is a mind-bending look into the Alice in Wonderland upside-down world where laws don’t mean what they say, basic biology doesn’t mean what all of scientific history says it means, and boys who pretend to be girls are girls.

Unable to play girls' sports in Idaho, Hecox now says he is being discriminated against on the basis of s*x under Title IX. But when asked the definition of s*x, Hecox’s attorney said she didn’t have a definition for the Court.

“Becky” Pepper-Jackson is a biological male who is suing the State of West Virginia to force himself into women’s sports. Pepper-Jackson became the WOMEN’s track-and-field champion for his school district before West Virginia banned men from competing in women’s sports.

Like Hecox, Pepper-Jackson claims he is being discriminated against on the basis of sex. But his attorney, Joshua Block of the ACLU, also doesn’t want the Court to define s*x in this case. “I don't think the purpose of Title IX is to have an accurate definition of sex,” Block told the Court.

How exactly can anyone determine if discrimination is happening if they don’t know the basic definition?

The purpose of Title IX has always been to give female athletes equal opportunity in sports. Yet men who don’t want to play their actual peers want to take over women’s sports.

Don’t let MEN erase women!

Justice Alito weighed in with some common sense and logic in the Pepper-Jackson case, saying Title IX “must mean something. ... And how can we decide that question without knowing what sex means in Title IX? ... How can we decide that without knowing what the statutory term means?” 

Chief Justice Roberts questioned the ACLU attorney more pointedly, asking, “You don't think we should have an operating definition of sex in Title IX? The question then would be instead what does Congress ... think the ... word means?”

The problem these men’s attorneys are desperately trying to avoid is the fact that basic biology clearly defines men as having XY and women as having XX chromosomes.

"Lindsay” Hecox and “Becky” Pepper-Jackson have XY chromosomes. No drugs can change that fact. No amount of surgeries, makeup, or frilly dresses will ever change reality. So, Hecox and Pepper-Jackson just want everyone to IGNORE the most basic biological truth. Instead, they want the Supreme Court and the entire world to pretend that boys can be girls.

The men’s arguments only work if we all play along with delusion — something that some of the Justices did, referring to the biological men before them with female pronouns.

Stand with girls & women!

Although the above exchanges might seem to favor our side, not all of the questions or lines of thinking were clear. In fact, I was greatly disturbed about many of the things that were said in oral arguments on Tuesday. Please be in prayer for this case, as it will have massive implications far beyond women’s sports.

These men don’t want the High Court to side with reality. But if they do not do so in this case, the future of humanity is at serious risk.

Liberty Counsel can only perform this important work with your direct financial support. As you know, we never charge our clients. Instead, we rely on friends like you.

For 36 years, Liberty Counsel has won 40 cases argued or briefed before the U.S. Supreme Court. We move quickly, steward resources carefully, and focus on measurable impact. But we cannot act without your direct financial support. Please, give generously today and let the Challenge Grant DOUBLE your impact.

Finally, please pray for the men and women who have been deceived by the “queer” movement and the highly profitable “trans care” medical industry.

In His service,

Mat Staver
Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel

TAKE ACTION

YES, Mat! I will help defend women and protect children! Your gift helps us provide FREE legal services to those whose right to life, religious liberty, and the natural family have been robbed. Help us keep fighting with your gift today.

SOURCES:

Little v. Hecox. (Supreme Court of the United States, January 13, 2026). Supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-38_bqm2.pdf.

West Virginia v. B.P.J. (Supreme Court of the United States, January 13, 2026). Supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-43_ihdj.pdf.