In the tempestuous arena of transgender athletics, the divide is not marked by uniforms but rather by vehement declarations and assertions. Here, opponents are not separated by a towering 7-foot net; they’re split along an ideological chasm.
Yet, after a tumultuous eight weeks characterized by two contentious forfeits and a singular federal lawsuit, an undeniable truth emerges: Boise State University is navigating this fray with calculated reticence. The institution has, with notable caution, refrained from engaging in a confrontation with the Mountain West Conference, the current regulatory body governing Bronco athletics.
Indeed, Boise State made history as the very first of four Mountain West institutions to cede a match against San José State—reputedly due to the presence of a transgender athlete on the opposing women’s roster. Notably, two athletes from Boise State, sisters Kiersten and Katelyn Van Kirk hailing from Bozeman, Montana, have stepped into the fray as plaintiffs in an expansive and incendiary federal lawsuit directed at both San José State and the Mountain West.
However, these athletes find themselves isolated. Administrators at Boise State have opted for silence regarding the lawsuit, opting to remain on the periphery of this contentious issue. These forfeits, stemming from what the university terms an “administrative decision,” reflect the extent of Boise State’s willingness to engage in this controversy.
Filed on November 13, the federal lawsuit echoes the voices of dissent against San José State. The twelve plaintiffs, including the Van Kirk sisters, assert that San José State has manipulated circumstances to advantage itself via the inclusion of a particularly formidable transgender athlete. They argue that because of this, San José State has unfairly acquired six pivotal conference victories through forfeits, all while cloaked in a “charade of silence” regarding the athlete’s identity. This situation purportedly enables this athlete to receive a woman’s athletic scholarship, which critics claim contravenes Title IX, the federal statute designed to safeguard women’s rights in education.
Further complicating matters is the extensive critique levied at the Mountain West’s “transgender participation policy.” The lawsuit articulates how this policy, paired with the risk of forfeits, has left opposing teams with a conundrum: either accept a forfeit detrimental to their standings or risk the safety of their players by taking the court against a potentially dangerous opponent. The complaint asserts that support for these athletes’ safety and their expressive rights is stifled: “The MWC’s policy was explicitly crafted to suppress protests and demonstrations regarding a women’s rights dilemma.”
Moreover, the lawsuit goes on to contend that the chilling effects reach further, insinuating a pervasive climate within the Mountain West that threatens punitive measures against any faculty who express solidarity with female volleyball athletes opposing this predicament.
Such dynamics may elucidate Boise State’s near-complete reticence since September 27, when it curtly announced the initial forfeit. Strikingly, the university has not publicly elaborated on the rationale behind its decisions, although it has become abundantly clear that the transgender athletics discourse underpins these actions.
When solicited for commentary regarding the ongoing lawsuit, Boise State spokesperson Chris Kutz diplomatically redirected inquiries towards the Mountain West Conference, noting that the conference, rather than Boise State, bears the mantle of defendant in this matter.
In stark contrast, others are stepping into the fray. On a recent Monday, a coalition of thirteen Congress members from Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah vehemently urged Mountain West Commissioner Gloria Nevarez to disallow transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports. They decried, “The Mountain West Conference’s negligence in prohibiting biological males from participating in women’s athletics undermines the efforts of dedicated female athletes striving for collegiate competition.” This letter was notably co-signed by Idaho’s entirely Republican congressional delegation, applauding the courageous stances taken by female athletes and their affiliated universities in advocating for Title IX.
Further complicating the situation, Utah State University filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit on the same day—a decision propelled by external pressures from Governor Spencer Cox and legislative leaders who had publicly implored Utah State to advocate for women’s sports.
In their motion, Utah State’s attorneys indicated that a “majority” of their volleyball lineup endorsed the choice to forfeit a match against San José State on October 23. Strikingly, Boise State has refrained from filing a similar motion for intervention, suggesting a unilateral decision-making process devoid of external influence.
According to Kutz, state officials have not solicited Boise State’s involvement in the lawsuit. Attorney General Raúl Labrador has yet to engage in discussions on the case; however, his office encourages Boise State to prioritize the safety of its athletes. In a statement disseminated to the public, Gov. Brad Little expressed continued support for all Idaho schools and universities in their fight to uphold the rights of female athletes, although his statement did not explicitly call for Boise State’s participation in the lawsuit.
This divergence in responses between Boise State and Utah State carries weight, especially considering both institutions are transient members of the Mountain West, poised to join a restructured Pac-12 Conference in 2026. Boise State’s aim to move beyond the Mountain West appears, by all indications, firmly established. They have previously signaled a disinterest in remaining within the conference.
The oral arguments in the lawsuit were set to unfold on Thursday morning, placing the Mountain West on the defensive under increasing scrutiny. The plaintiffs seek a judicial ruling that would invalidate San José State’s volleyball squad’s eligibility or retract the forfeits that have fortuitously elevated San José State’s standing within the conference. Time is of the essence, with plaintiffs pressing for a resolution before the commencement of the Mountain West’s conference tournament next week.
Though Boise State remains a quiet observer in these proceedings, the reverberations of this compelling case are poised to impact the landscape of collegiate athletics and ignite further debate.
Kevin Richert offers insightful weekly analysis on education policy and the crossroads of education politics. Look for his incisive stories each Thursday.
