Next week the Supreme Court faces a once-in-a-generation decision point for women.

On Tuesday, the justices will hear oral arguments in two pivotal cases on the future of women’s sports, the most visible current battleground for sex-based rights.

The question before the court is simple: Can states protect women’s rights based on sex? 

Or does gender identity trump sex — and override the intent of Title IX?  

In the two cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., male athletes who identify as female are challenging state laws that bar biological men and boys from competing in girls’ and women’s school sports.

Men have clear physiological advantages: They are faster and stronger than women, no matter how many wrong-sex hormones they ingest.

Letting gender identity override sex is not progress, as ideologues claim.

It pushes women backward — to a time before women’s sports existed at all, when girls like me would never have had the chance to compete.  

I started gymnastics in 1974, just two years after the federal government enacted Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in sports; I went on to become a seven-time national team member and the 1986 National Champion, fighting back from brutal injuries to do it.

I never quit — but had I been forced to compete on an unfair playing field, against boys, I’m not sure I would have persevered.

Why train, sacrifice and risk your body if the deck is stacked against you from........

© New York Post