Between 2020 and 2021, one hundred and ten bills in state legislatures across the United States suggested banning the participation of transgender athletes on sports teams for girls and women. As of July 2021, ten such bills have become state law. This paper tracks the political shift towards targeting transgender athletes. Conservative political interests now seek laws that suture biological determinist arguments to civil rights of bodies. Although narrow binary definitions of sex have long operated in the background as a means for policy implementation under Title IX, Republican lawmakers now aim to reframe sex non-discrimination policies as means of gendered exclusion. The content of proposals reveal the centrality of ideas about bodily immutability, and body politics more generally, in shaping the future of American gender politics. My analysis of bills from 2021 argues that legislative proposals advance a logic of “cisgender supremacy” inhering in political claims about normatively gendered bodies. Political institutions are another site for advancing, enshrining, and normalizing cis-supremacist gender orders, explicitly joining cause with medical authorities as arbiters of gender normativity. Characteristics of bodies and their alleged role in evidencing sex itself have fueled the tactics of anti-transgender activists on the political Right. However, the target of their aims is not mere policy change but a state-sanctioned return to a narrowly cis- and heteropatriarchal gender order.

How did the passage of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 politically define the "female athlete?" Since the mid-1970s, debates over the application of policy to athletic domains have been profoundly contentious. In this paper, I trace the policy deliberations concerning equity in athletics throughout the 1970s and explore the implications for our political understandings of what makes certain bodies "athletes" versus "female athletes" in contemporary sports and politics. I draw upon literatures from political science, sport sociology, and gender studies, and rely on archival methods to trace the process through which policymakers wed biological sex to policy implementation. I argue that Title IX unexpectedly became a central site for the construction of binary sex difference through three specific means: (1) conflict over the understandings of the role that biological sex should play in congressional debate before Title IX's passage, (2) conflict over application of sex to policy design in light of perceived capacities of women's bodies, and (3) naturalization of sex-segregated policy design which defines the relationship between sex and the physical body. The intersectional implications of Title IX's history demonstrate that policy has not yet fully ameliorated the raced, classed, and heterosexist inequities haunting institutions of American education.

Activists in the Democratic and Republican parties have distinct concerns about women's place in American politics and society. These views lead them to evaluate female candidates through different ideological lenses that are conditioned, in part, on their divergent attitudes about gender. We explore the implications of these diverging lenses through an examination of the 2008 candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, using data from an original survey of Democratic and Republican National Convention delegates. We find that delegate sex did not affect their evaluations but that evaluations were influenced by the interaction of partisanship and attitudes about women's roles.

Public policies invariably confer or deny benefits to particular citizens. How citizens respond to relevant policies has fundamental implications for democratic responsiveness. We study the beliefs of a core constituency of one of the most celebrated sex non-discrimination policies in U.S. history: Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Using a novel survey of college student-athletes, we find strong support for the spirit of the policy, with the vast majority of respondents reporting the opinion that there "should" be equity. Concurrently, student-athletes also perceive maldistribution among status quo resources and opportunities and believe that redistribution is needed. Furthermore, they are willing to take political action to improve equality. Consistent with our expectations, these beliefs are particularly salient for women and those who perceive persistent sex discrimination in society. Our results reveal "positive policy feedback" among policy beneficiaries of Title IX who mobilize to seek equity in athletics. The dissatisfaction among policy beneficiaries raises questions about democratic responsiveness (e.g., to whom are policymakers and leaders in college athletics responding?) and highlights the political nature of college athletics.

How did the passage of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 politically define the "female athlete?" Since the mid-1970s, debates over the application of policy to athletic domains have been profoundly contentious. In this paper, I trace the policy deliberations concerning equity in athletics throughout the 1970s and explore the implications for our political understandings of what makes certain bodies "athletes" versus "female athletes" in contemporary sports and politics. I draw upon literatures from political science, sport sociology, and gender studies, and rely on archival methods to trace the process through which policymakers wed biological sex to policy implementation. I argue that Title IX unexpectedly became a central site for the construction of binary sex difference through three specific means: (1) conflict over the understandings of the role that biological sex should play in congressional debate before Title IX's passage, (2) conflict over application of sex to policy design in light of perceived capacities of women's bodies, and (3) naturalization of sex-segregated policy design which defines the relationship between sex and the physical body. The intersectional implications of Title IX's history demonstrate that policy has not yet fully ameliorated the raced, classed, and heterosexist inequities haunting institutions of American education.