The latest clash over transgender athletes competing in female sports is unfolding in New Hampshire, with a federal judge on Tuesday set to hear a challenge to New Hampshire’s new “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act” which blocks transgender females from competing in women’s middle and high school athletic competitions.

That law, which went into effect last week, states that female-designated sports for grades 5-12 are not open to male students, with eligibility determined by biological sex listed on a student’s birth certificate.

The law applies to public schools and private schools that compete against public schools, and it states that families can sue a school that isn’t enforcing the ban. Governor Sununu, when signing the law in July, noted that nearly half of American states have enacted similar legislation. 

Two transgender girls, Parker Tirrell, 15, and Iris Turmelle, 14, are seeking to block enforcement of the law so they can play on the female sports teams at their schools. 

Attorneys for the two students argue that the law unconstitutionally discriminates against transgender athletes and would harm their prescribed medical treatment for gender dysphoria,” a disorder in which a person experiences significant distress or unease because their biological sex doesn’t match their “gender identity.”

The New Hampshire attorney general’s office is arguing that the state’s ban protects biological females by ensuring that they don’t face “fewer or less meaningful athletic opportunities than those available to boys,” and the state argues that voters — through their ballots — should overturn the state’s ban if they take issue with it, rather than the court undoing the “policy determination of lawmakers by judicial fiat.” 

Transgender policies — especially towards minors — have become a major legislative and legal battleground across America, as many Republican-led states have passed laws barring transgender athletes in women’s sports or in female bathrooms, as well as, perhaps far more significantly, preventing minors from undergoing medical transitioning procedures such as hormone therapy or surgery.

The Supreme Court in its next term is set to weigh in on Tennessee’s ban on so-called “gender affirming care” for minors and is widely expected to issue a landmark ruling. 

In the New Hampshire case, the judge, Landya McCafferty — an appointee of President Obama — issued an emergency temporary restraining order last week that allowed one of the students to go to girls’ soccer practice ahead of Tuesday’s hearing. 

The lawsuit says that both athletes’ “health and well-being depend on being able to follow her prescribed treatment, which includes living as a girl in all aspects of her life,” and that playing on a boys’ sports team is “not an option.”

Because neither student wishes to play sports if they can’t play on the female teams, the state transgender law denies them the “opportunity to participate in school sports entirely,” the lawsuit argues.

It says that without a preliminary injunction blocking the law, the students will suffer “immediate and irreparable psychological, emotional, developmental, and educational harm.”

The puberty blockers and hormone therapy both students are receiving are designed to prevent “physical changes caused by testosterone, including the muscular development characteristic of males,” the lawsuit notes.

The lawsuit claims that the law violates 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by discriminating on the “basis of sex and transgender status.” It also says that Title IX “forbids sex discrimination in athletic programs.”

Attorneys for the defendants, which include the state’s Education Commissioner, Frank Edelblut, note that the state law was enacted to “protect the fairness, integrity, and safety of middle and high school competition among female athletes.”

It says that the “General Court observed physical harm and a loss of opportunity for biological girls where transgender girls competed with and against them in athletic competition.”

The state also argues that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are “entitled to the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction,” which includes showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits, would suffer irreparable harm without it, and that the injunction serves the interest of the public. 

On Monday a federal appeals court allowed Florida to enforce the state’s ban on so-called gender-affirming care for minors, the AP reported, overruling an order from a lower court that blocked the ban while the case is being appealed. The ruling, by 2 to 1, was by the 11th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals, based at Atlanta.

The Sun has reached out to an attorney for both the plaintiffs and the defendants in the New Hampshire case for comment.