West Virginia v. B. P. J. · ¶132

The difference between this case and Bostock is that we face here a question that wasn’t present there. In Bostock, again, no one doubted that firing someone because of his biological sex qualified as “discrimination” under Title VII. See 590 U. S., at 681. Here, though, we face the question whether it qualifies as discrimination under Title IX for a federal funding recipient to sponsor sports teams restricted to biological women or girls alone. And for the reasons just laid out above and explored in depth by the Court, it does not. Title IX anticipates and approves single-sex living accommodations and sports teams in school settings; it does not treat them as unlawful discrimination. See supra, at 2; ante, at 8–12.

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.