BIOLOGICAL Male WINS — Female Powerlifters Lose

Athlete preparing for weightlifting by chalking hands

A biological male powerlifter has won a settlement against USA Powerlifting after Minnesota’s highest court ruled that excluding transgender athletes from women’s competitions violates state anti-discrimination law, potentially upending fair competition standards that female athletes have fought decades to protect.

Story Snapshot

USA Powerlifting settles with JayCee Cooper, a transgender woman barred from women’s competitions in 2018-2019, following Minnesota Supreme Court ruling
Settlement includes undisclosed financial payment and forces organization to reconsider science-based policies protecting female categories
Decision contradicts global competition standards and USAPL’s position that male puberty creates irreversible strength advantages
Female powerlifters face uncertain future as state law overrides biology-based fairness protections in strength sports

Court Ruling Forces Policy Reversal

USA Powerlifting settled a discrimination lawsuit with JayCee Cooper, a transgender woman who was denied entry to women’s powerlifting competitions beginning in 2018. The settlement followed an October 2025 Minnesota Supreme Court decision ruling the organization violated the state’s Human Rights Act by categorically excluding transgender women from female divisions. Financial terms remain undisclosed, and USAPL has not yet decided whether it will continue operating events in Minnesota under the new requirements.

Biological Reality Versus Legal Mandate

The case originated when USAPL lacked a formal transgender policy and denied Cooper’s applications on an ad-hoc basis. The organization subsequently implemented a blanket ban on transgender women in 2019, citing scientific evidence that male puberty confers irreversible physiological advantages in strength sports. Former USAPL president Larry Maile emphasized the policy aligned with global competition standards and what he described as bipartisan public sentiment supporting sex-based athletic categories. Despite these arguments, Minnesota courts determined that excluding athletes based on transgender status constitutes illegal discrimination under state law.

Female Athletes Face Uncertain Future

The settlement pressures USA Powerlifting and similar organizations to abandon biology-based eligibility standards in states with expansive gender identity protections. Powerlifting, which measures pure strength output, highlights the stark physical disparities created by male puberty, including increased muscle mass, bone density, and leverage advantages that hormone therapy cannot fully reverse. Female competitors who have dedicated years to achieving elite status now face the prospect of losing podium positions and records to biological males. This outcome reflects a broader pattern where government mandates override common-sense fairness protections that most Americans, regardless of political affiliation, recognize as essential to women’s sports.

Competing Standards Create National Confusion

The Minnesota ruling creates a patchwork regulatory landscape where state anti-discrimination laws conflict with international sports standards and scientific consensus on biological sex differences. Organizations like the International Olympic Committee permit restrictions on transgender participation to preserve fair competition, while progressive state courts increasingly treat such policies as unlawful discrimination. USA Powerlifting’s legal team argued their exclusion policy was reasonably necessary for their business mission of maintaining competitive integrity, but Minnesota’s Supreme Court rejected this defense as insufficient. The organization’s statement acknowledged settling “in the best interests” while continuing to believe in the merits of their science-based position.

Broader Implications For Women’s Athletics

This settlement establishes precedent that could force other strength and power sports organizations to choose between operating in states like Minnesota or maintaining female-only divisions based on biological sex. The case demonstrates how unelected judges can override decades of athletic governance designed to ensure fair competition for women. Gender Justice, Cooper’s legal representative, celebrated the outcome as a victory for transgender inclusion, while critics warn it undermines the very purpose of sex-segregated sports. The disconnect between elite legal interpretations and grassroots athletic reality exemplifies the frustration many Americans feel when government institutions prioritize ideological agendas over practical fairness and the concerns of everyday citizens.