This article looks at a sharp exchange at the Supreme Court where Justice Samuel Alito pressed an ACLU lawyer to define what it means to be a boy, a girl, a man, or a woman, and the lawyer struggled to give a clear answer.

The scene unfolded during oral arguments about whether Title IX protections extend to gender identity and how that intersects with equal protection law. Justice Alito’s line of questioning focused on whether courts can adjudicate discrimination claims without a firm definition of sex for equal protection purposes. The exchange underscored how legal fights over gender identity often hinge on basic definitional clarity.

Kathleen Hartnett, representing the ACLU, agreed with the premise that such an understanding matters, but she could not supply a single definitive explanation for the Court to adopt. Her explanation emphasized that the meaning would depend on how a state or government enacted or applied its policies. That practical, deferential stance left the justices probing how courts should evaluate exclusion and statutory language when the underlying terms remain undefined.

“Is it not necessary for there to be, for equal protection purposes, if that is challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, an understanding of what it means to be a boy or a girl, or a man or a woman?” Justice Alito asked.

“Yes, your honor,” Kathleen Hartnett, the lawyer from the ACLU, replied.

“And what is that definition, for equal protection purposes, what does it mean to be a boy or a girl, or a man or a woman?” Alito asked.

“Sorry, I misunderstood your question,” Hartnett said. “I think that the underlying enactment, whatever it was, the policy, the law… We’d have to have an understanding of how the state or the government was understanding that term to figure out whether someone was excluded. We do not have a definition for the Court.”

Alito pushed further, asking how a court could determine whether discrimination occurred under the Equal Protection Clause without knowing what sex means in that legal context. The lawyer tried to narrow the dispute to how statutes operate in practice, arguing the case was about categorical exclusions identified under state laws. That approach left Alito and other justices asking whether a purely statutory read of exclusions suffices when constitutional protection is at stake.

“And we don’t take issue with the… We’re not disputing the definition here. What we are saying is that the way it applies in practice is to exclude birth sex males categorically from women’s teams, and that there is a subset of those birth sex males where it doesn’t make sense to do so according to the state’s own interest,” she added.

The exchange highlights a broader problem conservatives have warned about for years: policy without coherent legal definitions invites chaos in courts, schools, and locker rooms. When core terms like boy, girl, man, and woman become contested without a judicially manageable standard, judges face pressure to decide on broad social questions rather than interpret clear legal texts. That dynamic pushes the judiciary into an uncomfortable role of drawing lines that legislatures and voters historically handled.

“Well, how can a court determine whether there is discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means, for equal protection purposes?” Alito asked.

“I think here, we just know, we basically know that they have identified, pursuant to their own statute, that Lindsey qualifies as a birth sex male. And she is being excluded categorically from the women’s teams as the statute…So we are taking the statutes’ definitions as we find them, we don’t dispute them, we just…”

That unfinished thought from the ACLU attorney left the room with an unmistakable sense that the law is being asked to do heavy lifting without agreed terms. For conservative observers, the moment underlined why courts should insist on textual clarity and respect the role of states and Congress in defining and enforcing sex-based rules. The hearing also served as a reminder that theological, scientific, and social debates were being funneled into legal proceedings where judges need durable, predictable standards.

Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Townhall’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.

Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.