In the year of our Lord 2026, CNN apparently still didn’t know what a woman was. In The Situation Room’s immediate reaction to Tuesday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding state bans on men (transgenders) completing in girl’s and women’s sports, CNN journalists openly mourned the outcome. Additionally, one of them suggested that the case involved those who were “assigned the male gender at birth” and “so-called girl’s sports.” Shortly after the media interns sprinted across the Supreme Court’s Front Plaza with the written opinions, CNN chief legal correspondent Paula Reid mourned the ruling: We just got a really important case about transgender athletes in student sports, and it does appear that here the Supreme Court says that states can bar transgender students from playing on girls' sports teams. So this is expected based on what we saw in oral argument, but it's the latest in a series of defeats for trans Americans amid political backlash, especially in conservative states.   CNN mourns that states can ban men from playing in women's sports. Paul Reid whines: "It's the latest in a series of defeats for trans Americans amid political backlash, especially in conservative states." pic.twitter.com/OuCRLYOE5c — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) June 30, 2026   Co-host Pamela Brown lamented, “this in many ways is not a surprise given this high court.” Of course, she reference the court ruling against allowing medical procedures on minors that would mutilate their bodies and leave them sterile, or, as she called it, “transgender care for minors.” Attempting to downplay the serious nature of the issue, Brown huffed about people opposing transgender issues at all given how small of a population they were. “And also there's a political element of this. Of course, this is an issue that is enmeshed in the culture wars in America, even though a very small percentage of Americans are transgender,” she bemoaned. “That's exactly right,” Reid agreed.   Pamela Brown huffs that people care at all about men completing in women's sports or men being in women's locker rooms or bathroom give how few there are: "Also, there's a political element of this, of course this is an issue that is enmeshed in the culture wars in America, even… pic.twitter.com/TIvomxzHoI — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) June 30, 2026   A short time later, chief legal analyst Laura Coates suggested “the crux of the issue” was about “somebody who was assigned the male gender at birth” being allowed to play in “so-called girl’s sports.” Coates only vaguely alluded to the possibly of there being an issue with biological men competing in women’s sports. Of course, she ignores the grievous injuries and stolen awards and keeps it in the realm of the theoretical: The argument that they were using to support a ban was that there was an unfair advantage provided to those assigned male at birth in women's competition. The other side said no, no, this is sex-based discrimination and it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and therefore you cannot do it. This has been, as Pamela said, at the heart of many culture wars and one about what the unfair advantage may be.   CNN's Laura Coates calls them "so-called girls sports": COATES: Here was the crux of the issue. It was whether or not somebody who was assigned the male gender at birth would be allowed to play in a traditionally so-called girls sports in a public, or a high school, or of… pic.twitter.com/5330RxpHvM — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) June 30, 2026   Playing dumb with how federalism allowed states to decide how things were conducted within their borders (when they didn’t violate the U.S. Constitution), Coates expressed concern of different laws in different states. “And so, you have the potential for a patchwork system as opposed to a workable framework that would be consistent across the board,” she said. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN’s The Situation Room June 30, 2026 10:02:30 a.m. Eastern (…) PAULA REID: We just got a really important case about transgender athletes in student sports, and it does appear that here the Supreme Court says that states can bar transgender students from playing on girls' sports teams. So this is expected based on what we saw in oral argument, but it's the latest in a series of defeats for trans Americans amid political backlash, especially in conservative states. Now, this is significant because roughly half of the states in this country have similar laws, but this is one of the big cases that we've been watching. We just got it. We didn't have a chance to go all the way through it, but it does appear that the Supreme Court is allowing states to ban athletes from playing - transgender athletes from playing in girl’s sports. PAMELA BROWN: Yeah, and as I mentioned, you know, this in many ways is not a surprise given this high court. It has ruled against transgender care for minors. It has ruled in favor of the Trump administration when it comes to banning transgender people in the military, requiring birth sex and passports. Now, as you just reported, they're upholding these state bans or restrictions on transgender athletes playing. And also there's a political element of this. Of course, this is an issue that is enmeshed in the culture wars in America, even though a very small percentage of Americans are transgender. REID: That's exactly right. And the way this case came before the court, there were a pair of cases, one from West Virginia, one from Idaho. West Virginia, one dealt with high school sports, the Idaho case dealt with a college athlete, and this case coming before the Supreme Court at this time. Again, we watched in oral argument. It did not appear that they were going to be able to rule that these laws are unconstitutional based on the questions the justices were asking. So, this is a significant case. This is again one of the biggest culture war cases that we're seeing. (…) 10:04:39 a.m. Eastern LAURA COATES: This is a monumental decision. Not unexpected, however, given how the oral arguments went. Here was the crux of the issue: It was whether or not somebody who was assigned the male gender at birth would be allowed to play in a traditionally so-called girl’s sports in a public, a high school, or, of course, in the college setting. The argument that they were using to support a ban was that there was an unfair advantage provided to those assigned male at birth in women's competition. The other side said no, no, this is sex-based discrimination and it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and therefore you cannot do it. This has been, as Pamela said, at the heart of many culture wars and one about what the unfair advantage may be. And whether or not gender identity should be included in a sex discrimination case and otherwise. The courts seemed at the onset to be leaning towards this outcome anyway, but the fact that it has now happened now we have 27 or more states, I believe, who have this ban, different colleges, and the NCAA applies it differently to each and every type of sport. And so, you have the potential for a patchwork system as opposed to a workable framework that would be consistent across the board. (…)