provide written verification from your doctor you can rely on the the high school incense and health examination form that every high school student past or you can rely were able to come in with a doctor's letter verifying that e mail would that resolve any dispute about her sex and eligibility and i said yes that is the way we interpret you are if we use criteria that physiologically go along with verify one point they can get lost in all the legal complexity and that is that no one in this case is contending that there is a constitutional right to play according to gender identity no one is disagreeing with parts fundamental recognition that males have large boats average real differences they give them powerful advantages in athletics because everybody here agrees that it's reasonable and constitutional tips blue biological males with the female gender identity from female the judge found below that no transgender individual that ever competed believed it bounded necessary to come up with rules that basically said male should not be the male sport so i assumed it been an issue that rose for there was a new challenge and the legislature said no we're going to reinforce what has been the time honored practice of separation by biology and i'd like to call the court's attention to the fact that the existing into the play policy did insist on separation by sex regardless of  made my point was nobody's taking the absolute you have a right based on identity so then what's left to do is use about degree or level of medical intervention if any will sufficiently eliminate biological advantage or level of fairness or unfairness for girls are we going to tolerate for other social goals perhaps and that includes the debate the park referred to as a tradeoff between equity and practicality and as you've seen in the briefs i'm sure this is a policy question for which there are differing answers coming up there in the world rugby federation that says in our context or the answer is no we just can't make the states and fair the i o c and the i a f to say well we're going to allow it but only with if you can prove to rigorous testing y certain levels or the infeasible a and i s a which to be proved to be the most lax the types of policies out there and say will come on in as long as you tell us and there really are not unique one visions as long as you tell us that you have been taking testosterone suppression for a year and that brings me to a important kind of missing factual predicate for the court's ruling that i would like to alter this court's attention in the midst of this debate over degrees because what the district court did was basically reach into that spectrum of policy options and constitutionalized into double a rule and i'd like to highlight the extent to which are literally no factual basis i don't mean a disputed factual on the issue i'm not talking about  talking about unnecessary factual predicate that wasn't proffered by the plaintiffs wasn't found by the court the plaintiff say in our prior tension of page fifty one of their brief that the driving force behind performance differences is the level levels that account for all the male physiological events bubbles of currently circulating testosterone here's the missing fact there is no evidence offered there was no finding  even offer often achieves female levels the only evidence in the record d on the relationship between into the blade policy simply the fact of suppression and any level is that it doesn't get it there and that's from a of the appendix lang it all study what that study will tell you is that in this is put together put out by boston medical center on a substantial sample what they found is that in three out of four males who went through the standard suppression protocol until they achieved what the study called steady state testosterone that is not getting the lower three out of four did not achieve anything like the male levels and one quarter didn't achieve any reduction at all so they only cited source on  relationship between the protocol and actually achieving levels introduced by the plaintiff's expert says it just doesn't work well and it doesn't work reliably and the plaintiffs in the briefing i want to point out if you have tacitly conceded that and what is off if you translate but that says is ok let's stop talking about levels because that's not working for us let's change the subject it doesn't work it's not reliable there's no evidence to bridge to get the court from the into doubl tight testosterone therapy critical thinking if somebody is born biologically male according to anatomy and has the normal male internal organ organs functioning and then tries out for a college girl seem even if his testosterone has been effectively reduced for one year he had nineteen years of building the bigger body bigger muscles bigger bones as typically happens with males if any of the medical studies address that or is this just my own speculation your honor we certainly discussed that in our brief the point that there are important changes height bone size spring bone strength that there are bells you can't unring when it comes to going through male puberty i was simply calling the court and we discussed that in detail in our brief i wanted to call the court and it is there it is there already and it is but for the argument i didn't want to take the time on the disputed issue substance tacitly conceded that that's all the science on this point in the record now i also would like to highlight in my last minute and forty seconds it's disputed as you've suggested your honor whether taking testosterone in a male after puberty down to the male levels really unring the bell that's very disputed but because the dispute is so prominent in the court's analysis i'd also like to highlight that it turns out to be an irrelevant question here's why it became irrelevant to the issue presented once the court dismissed his facial challenge because he cocks doesn't make any claim to the chief female levels or any particular level and it's irrelevant to the right of the injunction actually issued which changed the state into double a policy because the into double a policy contains no requirement to achieve any particular level three of us very strange world in which nobody is contending that you have a right simply to play according to your gender identity unless you take serious medical steps and yet the district court is constitutional law policy which there is no evidence succeeds in reducing testosterone the female levels even half the time and a quarter of the cases not at all the state your honor was well within its rights to look at the policies pick a different answer off the spectrum of policy choices and intermediate scrutiny which asks the question is the polish substantially related to the goal of safety in fairness for women is clearly satisfied as is illustrated by the fact and so she's afraid she'll be mistaken for a boy but i don't recall any declaration by jane doe never have been mistaken for a boy some of the stuff seems silly i mean instead what the district court did what the plainest urge is asked was the refusal to carve out an exception that's demanded by the plane to substantially related that framing error if every point of can come in and say yeah but what about and that's not in a media scrutiny that's not a substantial a ship test that becomes a test of perfection which is not what intermediate scrutiny wires now also in that context of say the fact that the act may result in a hardship for the caucus or indeed for other individuals is an issue that intermediate scrutiny ref you know it says but says that doesn't change the constitutional analysis as the courts the supreme court said and while a few statutory classifications are entirely free from the criticism that they sometimes produced an actual result and of course in the court case young far simply was not permitted to play the sport that he had invested his young life up to that and that was clearly very hurtful or there wouldn't have been multi year litigation as a athletes well you can cast that in the prejudicial why but what if what is the knowledge there is that it's not that hard actually separate biological males or females that definition perfectly exclude male but male biological males from female hasn't shown how excluding transgender individuals in every context could be constitutional again that's standing the law is headed your own as well understand that's trying to revive the facial challenge but even in the facial challenge the question case judge kennedy justice kennedy back in two thousand and one road to fail to acknowledge even our most basic biological differences risks making the guarantee of equal protection superficial and so disturbing is what they mean when we try to ignore biological