A ruling out of New Hampshire this week has ignited a new national flashpoint in the fight over women’s sports, parental rights, and freedom of speech. U.S. District Judge Steven McAuliffe sided with the Bow and Dunbarton School Districts in barring parents from wearing wristbands marked “XX” at school events—a silent protest against a biologically male athlete competing on a girls’ soccer team.
The backlash? Immediate, fierce, and far from over.
Last fall, several fathers of Bow High School athletes wore pink wristbands stamped with “XX” to a girls’ soccer game. Their message? A biological fact—that only women have two X chromosomes—and a protest against the inclusion of trans-identifying male Parker Tirrell, now 16, on the opposing team.
A federal judge just ruled that two fathers can’t wear pink wristbands that say “XX” to silently protest male inclusion in women’s sports
The judge said the female chromosomes, XX, are a “demeaning and harassing assertion”https://t.co/AKpAovWWQn
— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) April 15, 2025
The school district’s response was swift: trespass orders were issued against the parents, and they were ejected from school grounds. Though the trespass bans later expired, the parents filed suit, arguing a clear violation of their First Amendment rights.
Judge McAuliffe—ironically appointed by President George H. W. Bush and widower of the late space shuttle Challenger astronaut Christa McAuliffe—ruled against the parents. He argued that the “XX” wristbands could reasonably be interpreted as demeaning or harassing to transgender students, even if that wasn’t the parents’ intent.
Citing the “limited public forum” doctrine, McAuliffe claimed school officials were within their rights to restrict such expression. Pride flags? Still fine. But pink wristbands defending the reality of biological sex? Too offensive, he said.
I have asked my @CivilRights Division to examine this matter. This DOJ stands with women and their supportive parents. https://t.co/5sJZ0dEQ1y
— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) April 16, 2025
The court’s reasoning did not go unnoticed. Critics immediately pointed to the Supreme Court’s Tinker v. Des Moines decision (1969), which upheld the right of students to wear black armbands protesting the Vietnam War—so long as the protest was silent and non-disruptive.
And that’s the point: the school admitted there was no yelling, no physical disruption, no threats—just dads silently supporting girls’ sports. The supposed “offense” came solely from the message being labeled trans-exclusionary.
That’s viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple.
Enter Harmeet Dhillon, the newly confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. Dhillon wasted no time blasting the ruling on her official government X account, promising an investigation and warning that the DOJ will not allow civil liberties to be selectively applied.
This ruling is unconstitutional and will not stand. @CivilRights is examining this closely. Every father has not only a right but also a duty to stand up for his daughters, and the right to free speech is not curtailed by subjective “feelings.” https://t.co/CE0G2iS5Gd
— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) April 16, 2025
It’s a sharp departure from the Biden-era DOJ, which routinely ignored ideological censorship and looked the other way as schools silenced parents or pushed gender ideology on students.
Now? A real reckoning may be coming.
